PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14664770

Acute Hearing Loss.

Abstract

Acute hearing loss (AHL) is a medical urgency. The management of patients presenting with sudden deafness involves detecting the causal mechanism and administering emergency therapeutic drugs to restore hearing by minimizing the period of cellular ischemia to the inner ear. Acute management of AHL consists of administering a 10-day course of high-dose corticosteroids (prednisone 60 to 80 mg) until a cause can be established. Magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium is indicated, with a study dedicated to the internal auditory canals. The natural history of idiopathic AHL is characterized by spontaneous improvement in two thirds of patients. Maximum improvement occurs within 2 weeks of onset of AHL. In the vast majority of patients (>90%), the AHL is idiopathic. For an identifiable etiology, the treatment is specific and may consist of stopping ototoxic medications, repair of perilymphatic fistulas, administering antimicrobial agents for viral or bacterial infections, correction of metabolic imbalances, management of stroke, and possible surgery for cerebellopontine angle tumors. Management of idiopathic AHL is controversial. Various therapeutic agents, such as vasodilators, diuretics, anticoagulants, plasma expanders, contrast agents, and carbogen inhalation, have been tried in single therapy or as a combination therapy. The empiric use of these drugs is mainly based on improving the blood circulation and restoring the oxygen tension to the inner ear. The use of interventional procedures, such as low-density lipoprotein apheresis as well as newer drug delivery systems for corticosteroids, and immunosuppressive agents have opened new options in the treatment of AHL secondary to immune-mediated diseases of the inner ear. Prognosis for AHL is best when patients are seen early, begin recovery within 2 weeks, and have a mild hearing loss (<90 dB) with upward-sloping audiograms. Greater than 90 dB of hearing loss along with flat or down sloping audiogram, advanced age, and presence of vertigo are adverse prognostic factors for recovery of hearing loss.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Madhura Tamhankar, David Solomon. 2004. Acute Hearing Loss.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-004-0039-y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗