Understanding Patient Utilization Patterns of Cochlear Implant Processors

To evaluate the extent of benefit the second processor provides and to better understand utilization patterns regarding cochlear implant (CI) sound processors.

Institutional contracts determine the external CI sound processor hardware that a patient is eligible for. Despite the high prevalence of CI worldwide, there is a paucity in the literature regarding patient preferences and how patients utilize provided external hardware.

A close-ended, multiple-choice survey was mailed to all patients over the age of 18 years who underwent CI between 2016 to 2020 at a tertiary academic medical center. Patients who received their CI hardware prior to 2018 were provided 2 processors, whereas those who received their hardware in 2018 or later were provided 1 processor.

A total of 100/263 surveys were returned for a response rate of 38.0%. Of the cohort with 1 processor, 31.3% experienced a period without a functioning processor and access to sound compared to 5.6% of the cohort with 2 processors (P = -.003). Of the cohort with 2 processors, 24.3% noted that they often or always utilize their second processor. When asked how important having a second processor was, 62.9% of the 2-processor group responded that it was very important (P = .001). The most common reason for utilizing the second processor was a damaged primary processor. Patients who received 2 processors had a significantly lower number of postoperative audiology clinic visits for device troubleshooting (P < .001).

Patients who have 2 CI external processors identify this as being very important to them and experience significantly less time without access to sound due to lack of a functioning processor. As institutional contracts often dictate whether a patient will receive 1 or 2 sound processors with their CI hardware, it is important to understand patient preferences and utilization patterns in order to guide patient-centric policies.