Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2020 May:390:107924.
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.107924. Epub 2020 Feb 18.

Comparison of electrode impedance measures between a dexamethasone-eluting and standard Cochlear™ Contour Advance® electrode in adult cochlear implant recipients

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Comparison of electrode impedance measures between a dexamethasone-eluting and standard Cochlear™ Contour Advance® electrode in adult cochlear implant recipients

Robert Briggs et al. Hear Res. 2020 May.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the difference in electrode impedance across discrete time points to 24 months post-activation for two groups of adult cochlear implant recipients, one using an investigational perimodiolar (Contour Advance®) array augmented with 40% concentration weight per weight (w/w) dexamethasone (the Drug Eluting Electrode, 'DEE' Group), and the other the commercially available Contour Advance ('Control' Group).

Design: Ten adult subjects were implanted with the DEE and fourteen with the Control. Electrode impedances were measured intra-operatively, one-week post-surgery, at initial activation (approximately two-weeks post-surgery), and at approximately one, three, six, 12 and 24 months post-activation. Two different impedance measurements were obtained: 1) in MP1+2 mode using Custom Sound programming software; and 2) 4-point impedance measures utilising BP+2 stimulation mode with recording on non-stimulating electrodes. Data were analysed with respect to both impedance averaged across all electrodes, and impedance for electrodes grouped into basal, middle and apical sections.

Results: Group mean MP1+2 impedance for the DEE was significantly lower than for the Control at all post-operative time points examined, and for each of the basal, middle and apical cochlear regions. Group mean 4-point impedance was significantly lower for the DEE than the Control in the basal region at six, 12 and 24 months post-activation and in the middle region at 12- and 24-months post-activation. The pattern of change in MP1+2 impedance differed significantly in the early post-operative period prior to device activation. A significant 4.8 kOhm reduction in impedance between surgery and one-week was observed for the DEE group but not for the Control. A 2.0 kOhm increase between the one and two week post-operative time points was observed for the Control but not for the DEE group.

Conclusion: While rates of adoption of different surgical approaches differed between the groups and this may have had a confounding effect, the results suggest that passive elution of dexamethasone from the investigational device was associated with a change in the intracochlear environment following surgical implantation of the electrode array, as evidenced by the lower electrode impedance measures.

Keywords: Cochlear implants; Dexamethasone; Drug delivery; Electrode impedance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms