Clinical impact of hyperbaric oxygen therapy combined with steroid treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A case–control study

• Published in: Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology Vol. 9; no. 4; pp. e1297 - n/a
• Main Authors: Sanda, Naoya, Sawabe, Michi, Kabaya, Kayoko, Kawaguchi, Momoko, Fukushima, Akina, Nakamura, Yoshihisa, Maseki, Shinichiro, Niwa, Masaki, Mori, Hiroki, Hyodo, Yoshiyuki, Nishiyama, Kazuyoshi, Kawakita, Daisuke, Iwasaki, Shinichi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.08.2024; Wiley
• Subjects: Audiometry; case–control study; Combination therapy; Diabetes; Hearing loss; Hearing protection; hyperbaric oxygen therapy; Hypertension; Original Research; Oxygen therapy; Patients; prednisolone; Regression analysis; Statistical analysis; Steroids; sudden sensorineural hearing loss; Vertigo; Japan
• ISSN: 2378-8038; 2378-8038
• DOI: 10.1002/lio2.1297

Objectives The aim of present study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) as a primary therapy combined with standard systemic corticosteroid treatment for sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) compared to treatment without the use of HBOT (non‐HBOT) through clinical data and advanced analytical approaches. Study Design Case–control study. Methods Conducted across three Japanese medical centers involving 298 SSNHL patients diagnosed between 2020 and 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed first onset and treatment, WHO grade 3 or 4 initial hearing impairment, receipt of systemic corticosteroid therapy within 14 days of symptom onset, and initiation of HBOT within the same timeframe for the case group. The primary outcome measure was the difference in hearing improvement (mean hearing level in decibels, dB) between the two groups, assessed by pure‐tone audiometry at baseline and 3 months post‐treatment, using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method adjusted for covariate differences. Results The study included 67 patients in the HBOT group and 68 in the non‐HBOT group. The HBOT group exhibited significantly greater hearing improvement (IPTW‐adjusted difference: 7.6 dB, 95% CI 0.4–14.7; p = 0.038). Patients without vertigo in the HBOT group demonstrated substantial hearing improvement (11.5 dB, 95% CI 2.3–20.6; p = 0.014), whereas those with vertigo showed no significant improvement (−1.8 dB, 95% CI −11.8–8.3; p = 0.729). The HBOT group also had a significantly higher association with complete recovery (IPTW‐adjusted odds ratio: 2.57, 95% CI 1.13–5.85; p = 0.025). Conclusion In SSHNL, HBOT combination therapy yielded slightly but significantly improved hearing outcomes compared to non‐HBOT treatment. Level of Evidence 4. We conducted a case–control study employing clinical data and a novel statistical method to assess the efficacy of HBOT as a primary treatment for SSNHL in comparison to non‐HBOT treatments. Our results demonstrated that patients with SSNHL who received HBOT combination therapy exhibited slightly but significantly improved hearing outcomes, particularly at lower frequencies and in patients without vertigo.