Clinical Trial Results: Wireless Programming Pod. Sara Neumann, AuD, CCC-A

Transcription

1 Clinical Trial Results: Wireless Programming Pod Sara Neumann, AuD, CCC-A

2 Disclosures This research was par:ally funded by a grant from Cochlear Americas

3 Hearts for Hearing Team Audiologists Jace Wolfe, Ph.D., CCC-A Krystal Hudgens, Au.D., CCC-A Sara Neumann, Au.D., CCC-A, CH-AP Mila Duke, Au.D., CCC-A Elizabeth Musgrave, Au.D., CCC-A Sarah Cain, Au.D., F-AAA Johnna Wallace, Au.D., CCC-A Emily Mills, Au.D., Au.D., CCC-A Jarrod BaNles, Au.D. Arun Joshi, Au.D., F-AAA Rachel Magann Faivre, Au.D. COHC Shannon Winters, Au.D. Esther Kim, Au.D. Pa: Burns, B. A., Audiology Assistant Reyna Romero, Audiology Assistant Rocio Por:llo, Audiology Assistant Kristen Wisdom, Audiology Assistant Maddie Gomez, Audiology Assistant Fourth Year Audiology Resident Stephanie Bledsoe, B.S. Speech-Language Pathologists Joanna Smith, M.S., CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Tamara Elder, M.S. CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Darcy Stowe, M.S. CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Lindsay Hanna, M.S., CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Jennifer Bryngleson, M.S., CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT Tessa Hixon, M.S., CCC-SLP Parker Wilson, M.A., CCC-SLP Abby BreN, M.A., CFY-SLP Helen Carter, M.A. CFY-SLP Negeen Sobhani, M.S., CFY-SLP Early Childhood Jenn Kelley Development and Marke:ng Kris Taylor Chris:an Boone Rachael Odor Administra:on Kerri Brumley Jesse Dehojos Sherry Edwards Jackie Keathly Jill Kelley Susan LaFleur Kris: Murphy Verneda Osborne Rocio Por:llo JJ Sanders Diane Ward Mar: Zaletel

4 Presenta:on Objec:ves At the end of the presenta:on, audience will be able to: Differen:ate components and use for the wireless programming pod with Nucleus Sound Processors Describe audiologist experience with the wireless pod through with the Kanso clinical trial

5 Have you ever felt like.

6 Background The Cochlear Wireless Programming Pod enables clinicians to program without the need for a cable connec:on Connector for processing unit LED indicator Connector for rechargeable battery

7 Wireless Programming Pod

8 Clinical study overview Upgrade study with take-home experience 30 subjects (age 12 and up) 3 clinics NYU Langone Medical Center Rocky Mountain Ear Center Hearts for Hearing Objec:ve: To evaluate acceptance of the Kanso processor by experienced users of a BTE processor To evaluate the success of wireless pairing to both the wireless programming pod and wireless accessories

9 Study visit schedule Visit 1 Program Kanso Sound Processor using Wireless Programming Pod Audiologist ques:onnaire Focused on connec:on to wireless pod, reliability, preference Subject ques:onnaire Visit 2 Program subject s Nucleus 5 or Nucleus 6 Sound Processor if needed Audiologist ques:onnaire Focused on future use of wireless programming pod preference Subject ques:onnaire

10 Inclusion/Exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria At least 6 months experience with Nucleus 24 series of later implant in at least one implanted ear Subjects age 12 and older, cogni:vely and developmentally able to complete all study related ques:onnaires as deemed by the principal inves:gator or delegated staff At least 3 months experience with the CP810, CP920 or CP910 sound processor Ability to use 2 zinc air baneries with their current MAP Willingness to par:cipate in and comply with all requirements of the protocol for the dura:on of the trial Exclusion criteria Unrealis:c expecta:ons on the part of the subjects, regarding possible benefits, risks and limita:ons that are inherent to the procedure and device Addi:onal disabili:es that would prevent par:cipa:on in evalua:ons Implant types not currently supported by the CP950 sound processor

11 Study demographics Average age at study enrollment: 52.8 years (range years) Average age at implanta:on: 47.2 years (range 5-78 years) Avg length of device use: 5.7 yrs Gender: 17 males, 13 females

12 Audiologist Ques:onnaire At Visit 1: Successful use of wireless pod for programming session 87% of the :me, clinicians experienced success with with pairing and use of wireless pod

13 Audiologist Ques:onnaire Visit 2: Programming pod vs. tradi:onal programming pod preference per subject 90% of the :me, clinicians reported preference for wireless pod

14 Addi:onal feedback Scenarios preferred: Preference for everyday use, especially with pediatrics Considerations: Rechargeable battery needed Most times programming wirelessly would be preferred. It's nice not to have so many cables hanging around. I would imagine it most useful for remote programming or if you have to switch offices.

15 Summary Wireless programming pod was successfully used for a substanaal majority of Kanso programming study visits Notable preference for wireless programming pod over standard programming pod

16 Shoot for the Moon! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION