Comparação do tempo de dois procedimentos com novas tecnologias de Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Tronco Encefálico Automático (PEATE-A)

Sena, Taise Argolo; Ramos, Natália; Rodrigues, Gabriela Ribeiro Ivo; Lewis, Doris Ruthi

Resumos

OBJETIVO: Comparar o tempo de dois procedimentos de Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Tronco Encefálico Automático (PEATE-A) utilizando taxa de repetição e modo de detecção diferentes. MÉTODOS: Foi realizada a triagem auditiva com Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Tronco Encefálico Automático (PEATE-A) em 30 neonatos, com média de idade de 21 dias. Cada neonato foi submetido a dois procedimentos de triagem auditiva com diferentes equipamentos de PEATE-A (Procedimento 1 e Procedimento 2). O Procedimento 1 utilizou taxa de repetição de 53 Hz e teste estatístico para detecção da resposta denominado one-sample test, e o Procedimento 2 utilizou taxa de repetição de 90 Hz e teste estatístico para detecção da resposta denominado q-sample test. Em seguida, foi registrado o PEATE com estímulo clique como teste padrão ouro, cuja análise das respostas foi realizada por um fonoaudiólogo com experiência neste procedimento. RESULTADOS: O tempo médio observado para o Procedimento 1 considerando ambas orelhas foi de 84,8 (±53,5) segundos; para o Procedimento 2, o tempo médio foi de 27,9 (±20,0) segundos. O primeiro procedimento apresentou tempo de exame aproximadamente três vezes maior quando comparado ao segundo. A análise estatística mostrou diferença significativa entre os tempos dos procedimentos. CONCLUSÃO: O q-sample test e taxa de repetição em torno de 90 Hz nos equipamentos de PEATE-A detectaram a resposta de maneira mais rápida.

Potenciais evocados auditivos; Triagem neonatal; Recém-nascido; Audição; Testes auditivos

PURPOSE: To compare the testing time of two Automated Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR) procedures using different repetition rates and detection modes. METHODS: A hearing screening using AABR was performed in 30 newborns with mean age of 21 days. Each newborn was submitted to two hearing screening procedures using different AABR equipments (Procedure 1 and Procedure 2). Procedure 1 used a repetition rate of 53 Hz and the one-sample test for response detection; Procedure 2 used a repetition rate of 90 Hz, and the q-sample test for response detection. The ABR with click stimulus was then registered as gold standard test, and the responses were analyzed by a trained audiologist. RESULTS: The mean time observed for Procedure 1 considering both ears was 84.8 (±53.5) seconds; for Procedure 2 the mean time was 27.9 (±20.0) seconds. The testing time of the first procedure was three times longer than the second one. Statistical analysis showed significant difference between the testing times of the procedures. CONCLUSION: The q-sample test and the repetition rate of 90 Hz used in the AABR equipment showed earlier response detection.

Evoked potentials, auditory; Neonatal screening; Infant, newborn; Hearing; Hearing tests

Referências bibliográficas

¹ Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL, Coutler DK, Mehl A. Language of early and later identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics. 1988 Nov;102(5):1161-71.
² Marion Downs National Hearing Center, 2011. Available from: http://www.mariondowns.com/
³ Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Am J Audiol 2000 Jun;9:9-29.
⁴ Hernández-Herrera RJ, Hernández-Aguirre LM, Castillo-Martínez NE, de la Rosa-Mireles N, Martínez-Elizondo J, Alcalá-Galván LG, et al. Hearing screening and diagnosis of hearing loss: high risk versus low risk neonates. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2007 Sep;45(5):421-6.
⁵ Jakubíková J, Kabátová Z, Pavlovcinová G, Profant M. Newborn hearing screening and strategy for early detection of hearing loss in infants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009 Apr;73(4):607-12. Epub 2009 Jan 31.
⁶ Early Identification of Hearing Impairment in Infants and Young Children. NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 1993 Mar;1-3;11(1):1-24.
⁷ Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2007 Oct;120(4):898-921.
⁸ Comitê Multiprofissional em Saúde Auditiva - COMUSA. Saúde auditiva neonatal. Academia Brasileira de Audiologia, 2009. [ Acesso em: 2009 Nov 03] Disponível em: http://www.audiologiabrasil.org.br/pdf/COMUSA_final_17_maio2009.pdf
⁹ Keohane BM, Mason SM, Baguley DM. Clinical evaluation of the vector algorithm for neonatal hearing screening using automated auditory brainstem response. J Laryngol Otol. 2004 Feb;118(2):112-6.
¹⁰ Van Straaten HL Automated auditory brainstem response in neonatal hearing screening. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1999 Dec;88(432):76-9.
¹¹ Stürzebecher E, Cebulla M, Neumann K. Click-evoked ABR at high stimulus repetition rates for newborn hearing screening. Int J Audiol 2003 Mar;42:59-70.
¹² Pedersen L, Møller TR, Wetke R, Ovesen T. Neonatal hearing screening. A comparison of automatic auditory brainstem audiometry and otoacoustic emissions. Ugeskr Laeger. 2008 Feb 18;170(8):642-6.
¹³ Freitas VS, Alvarenga KF, Bevilacqua MC, Martinez MAN, Costa OA. Análise crítica de três protocolos de triagem auditiva neonatal. Pro Fono. 2009 Jul-Set;21(3):201-6.
¹⁴ Guastini L, Mora R, Dellepiane M, Santomauro V, Mora M, Rocca A, Salami A. Evaluation of an automated auditory brainstem response in a multi-stage infant hearing screening. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010 Aug;267(8):1199-205.
¹⁵ Cebulla M, Stürzebecher E, Elberling C. Objective detection of auditory steady-state responses - comparison of one-sample and q-sample tests. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006 Feb;17(2):93-103.
¹⁶ Cebulla M, Stürzebecher E, Elberling C, Müller J. New clicklike stimuli for hearing testing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Oct;18(9):725-38.
¹⁷ Dolbie RA, Wilson MJ. Objetive response detection in the frequency domain. Eletroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993 Nov-Dec;88(6):516-24.
¹⁸ Cebulla M, Stürzebercker E, Wernecke KD. Objetive detection of auditory evoked potentials. Comparison of several statistical tests in the frequency domain by means of Monte Carlo simulations. Scand Audiol. 1996;25(3):201-6.
¹⁹ Stürzebercker E, Cebulla M. Objetive detection of auditory evoked potentials - Comparison of several statistical tests in the frequency domain on the basis of near-threshold ABR data. Scand Audiol. 1997;26(1):7-14.
²⁰ Stürzebecher E, Cebulla M, Wernecke K. Objective response detection in the frequency domain: comparison of several q-sample tests. Audiol Neurootol. 1999 Jan-Feb;4(1):2-11.

Datas de Publicação

Publicação nesta coleção
08 Abr 2013
Data do Fascículo
2013

Histórico

Recebido
23 Set 2011
Aceito
15 Out 2012

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

[1] ¹ Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL, Coutler DK, Mehl A. Language of early and later identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics. 1988 Nov;102(5):1161-71.

[2] ² Marion Downs National Hearing Center, 2011. Available from: http://www.mariondowns.com/

[3] ³ Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Am J Audiol 2000 Jun;9:9-29.

[4] ⁴ Hernández-Herrera RJ, Hernández-Aguirre LM, Castillo-Martínez NE, de la Rosa-Mireles N, Martínez-Elizondo J, Alcalá-Galván LG, et al. Hearing screening and diagnosis of hearing loss: high risk versus low risk neonates. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2007 Sep;45(5):421-6.

[5] ⁵ Jakubíková J, Kabátová Z, Pavlovcinová G, Profant M. Newborn hearing screening and strategy for early detection of hearing loss in infants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009 Apr;73(4):607-12. Epub 2009 Jan 31.

[6] ⁶ Early Identification of Hearing Impairment in Infants and Young Children. NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 1993 Mar;1-3;11(1):1-24.

[7] ⁷ Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics. 2007 Oct;120(4):898-921.

[8] ⁸ Comitê Multiprofissional em Saúde Auditiva - COMUSA. Saúde auditiva neonatal. Academia Brasileira de Audiologia, 2009. [ Acesso em: 2009 Nov 03] Disponível em: http://www.audiologiabrasil.org.br/pdf/COMUSA_final_17_maio2009.pdf

[9] ⁹ Keohane BM, Mason SM, Baguley DM. Clinical evaluation of the vector algorithm for neonatal hearing screening using automated auditory brainstem response. J Laryngol Otol. 2004 Feb;118(2):112-6.

[10] ¹⁰ Van Straaten HL Automated auditory brainstem response in neonatal hearing screening. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1999 Dec;88(432):76-9.

[11] ¹¹ Stürzebecher E, Cebulla M, Neumann K. Click-evoked ABR at high stimulus repetition rates for newborn hearing screening. Int J Audiol 2003 Mar;42:59-70.

[12] ¹² Pedersen L, Møller TR, Wetke R, Ovesen T. Neonatal hearing screening. A comparison of automatic auditory brainstem audiometry and otoacoustic emissions. Ugeskr Laeger. 2008 Feb 18;170(8):642-6.

[13] ¹³ Freitas VS, Alvarenga KF, Bevilacqua MC, Martinez MAN, Costa OA. Análise crítica de três protocolos de triagem auditiva neonatal. Pro Fono. 2009 Jul-Set;21(3):201-6.

[14] ¹⁴ Guastini L, Mora R, Dellepiane M, Santomauro V, Mora M, Rocca A, Salami A. Evaluation of an automated auditory brainstem response in a multi-stage infant hearing screening. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010 Aug;267(8):1199-205.

[15] ¹⁵ Cebulla M, Stürzebecher E, Elberling C. Objective detection of auditory steady-state responses - comparison of one-sample and q-sample tests. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006 Feb;17(2):93-103.

[16] ¹⁶ Cebulla M, Stürzebecher E, Elberling C, Müller J. New clicklike stimuli for hearing testing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Oct;18(9):725-38.

[17] ¹⁷ Dolbie RA, Wilson MJ. Objetive response detection in the frequency domain. Eletroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993 Nov-Dec;88(6):516-24.

[18] ¹⁸ Cebulla M, Stürzebercker E, Wernecke KD. Objetive detection of auditory evoked potentials. Comparison of several statistical tests in the frequency domain by means of Monte Carlo simulations. Scand Audiol. 1996;25(3):201-6.

[19] ¹⁹ Stürzebercker E, Cebulla M. Objetive detection of auditory evoked potentials - Comparison of several statistical tests in the frequency domain on the basis of near-threshold ABR data. Scand Audiol. 1997;26(1):7-14.

[20] ²⁰ Stürzebecher E, Cebulla M, Wernecke K. Objective response detection in the frequency domain: comparison of several q-sample tests. Audiol Neurootol. 1999 Jan-Feb;4(1):2-11.

Comparação do tempo de dois procedimentos com novas tecnologias de Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Tronco Encefálico Automático (PEATE-A)

Testing time comparison between two procedures with new technologies of Automated Auditory Brainstem Response (AABR)

Resumos

Referências bibliográficas

Datas de Publicação

Histórico