Neonatal hearing screening - does failure in TEOAE screening matter when the AABR test is passed?

Abstract

PurposeNewborns who fail the transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) but pass the automatic auditory brainstem response (AABR) in universal newborn hearing screening (UNHS), frequently have no further diagnostic test or follow-up. The present study aimed to investigate whether hearing loss might be missed by ignoring neonatal TEOAE failure in the presence of normal AABR.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted in newborns presenting between 2017 and 2021 to a tertiary referral centre due to failure in the initial UNHS. The main focus was on infants who failed TEOAE tests, but passed AABR screening. The clinical characteristics and audiometric outcomes were analysed and compared with those of other neonates.ResultsAmong 1,095 referred newborns, 253 (23%) failed TEOAE despite passing AABR screening. Of the 253 affected infants, 154 returned for follow-up. At 1-year follow-up, 46 (28%) achieved normal audiometric results. 32 (21%) infants had permanent hearing loss (HL) confirmed by diagnostic ABR, 58 (38%) infants had HL solely due to middle ear effusion (MEE), and for 18 (12%) infants HL was suspected without further differentiation. The majority of permanent HL was mild (78% mild vs. 13% moderate vs. 9% profound). The rate of spontaneous MEE clearance was rather low (29%) leading to early surgical intervention in 36 children. The profile of the risk factors for hearing impairment was similar to that of newborns with failure in both, TEOAE and AABR; however, there was a stronger association between the presence of risk factors and the incidence of HL (relative risk 1.55 vs. 1.06; odds ratio 3.61 vs. 1.80).ConclusionIn newborns, the discordance between a “refer” in TEOAE and a “pass” in AABR screening is associated with a substantial prevalence of hearing impairment at follow-up, especially in the presence of risk factors.