Patients with non-idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss show hearing improvement more often than patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

INTRODUCTION: To compare inpatient treated patients with idiopathic (ISSNHL) and non-idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (NISSNHL) regarding frequency, hearing loss, treatment and outcome. METHODS: All 574 inpatient patients (51% male, median age: 60 years) with ISSNHL and NISSNHL, who were treated in federal state Thuringia in 2011 and 2012, were included retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: ISSNHL was diagnosed in 490 patients (85%), NISSNHL in 84 patients (15%). 49% of these cases had hearing loss due to acute otitis media, 37% through varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease, 10% through Menière disease and 7% due to other reasons. Patients with ISSNHL and NISSNHL showed no difference between age, gender, side of hearing loss, presence of tinnitus or vertigo and their comorbidities. 45% of patients with ISSNHL and 62% with NISSNHL had an outpatient treatment prior to inpatient treatment (p < 0.001). The mean interval between onset of hearing loss to inpatient treatment was shorter in ISSNHL (7.7 days) than in NISSNHL (8.9 days; p = 0.02). The initial hearing loss of the three most affected frequencies in pure-tone average (3PTAmax) scaled 72.9 dBHL ± 31.3 dBHL in ISSNHL and 67.4 dBHL ± 30.5 dBHL in NISSNHL. In the case of acute otitis media, 3PTAmax (59.7 dBHL ± 24.6 dBHL) was lower than in the case of varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease (80.11 dBHL ± 34.19 dBHL; p = 0.015). Mean absolute hearing gain (Δ3PTAmaxabs) was 8.1 dB ± 18.8 dB in patients with ISSNHL, and not different in NISSNHL patients with 10.2 dB ± 17.6 dB. A Δ3PTAmaxabs ≥ 10 dB was reached in 34.3% of the patients with ISSNHL and to a significantly higher rate of 48.8% in NISSNHL patients (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: ISSNHL and NISSNHL show no relevant baseline differences. ISSNHL tends to have a higher initial hearing loss. NISSHNL shows a better outcome than ISSNHL.

Inpatient treatment of patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: a population-based healthcare research study.

PURPOSE: The aim was to determine inpatient treatment rates of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) with focus on diagnostics, treatment, and outcome. METHODS: A retrospective population-based study in the federal state Thuringia in 2011 and 2012 was performed on all 490 inpatients (51% females, median age: 60 years) treated for ISSNHL (Median duration: 7 days). The association between analyzed parameters and the probability of recovery was tested using univariable and multivariable statistics. RESULTS: The inpatient treatment rate for ISSNHL was 11.23 per 100,000. 172 patients (35%) had an outpatient treatment prior to inpatient treatment. For pure-tone audiometry of the three most affected frequencies (3PTAmax), the initial median hearing loss was 66.67 dB, the median absolute hearing gain ΔPTAabs was 10.0 dB, and the median relative hearing gain in relation with the contralateral side ΔPTArel contral was 30.86%. 51% of the patients reached a ΔPTAabs of ≥ 10 dB. About 2 of 5 patients recovered to a ΔPTArel contral ≥ 50% or reached ≤ 10 dB of contralateral ear. The multivariate analysis revealed that an ISSNHL on the left side [Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.6.88; confidence interval (CI) = 1.161-2.454], no down-sloping audiogram type (HR = 2.016; CI = 1.391-2.921), and no prior outpatient prednisolone treatment (HR = 2.374; CI = 1.505-3.745) were independent factors associated with better recovery (ΔPTAabs ≥ 10 dB). CONCLUSION: Inpatient treatment of ISSNHL is variable in daily practice. The population-based recovery rate was worse than reported in clinical trials. More standardization and clearer criteria for outpatient, inpatient, and salvage therapy are needed.