Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective: A retrospective study was conducted to explore the immune-inflammatory responses in sudden sensorineural hearing Loss (SSNHL) patients with different audiogram shapes. Methods: One hundred and ten inpatients with SSNHL were assigned to 4 subgroups according to the audiogram shape and treated with systemic methylprednisolone. The numbers of white blood cells, neutrophils, lymphocytes, platelets, and monocytes were counted. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and the monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) were calculated and statistically analyzed. Results: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, MLR, and systemic immune index (SII) of SSNHL patients were significantly higher than the control group, while PLR was not statistically significant. There were no statistical differences in NLR, PLR, MLR, and SII among the 4 subgroups. Conclusion: Immune-inflammatory response may be a common pathogenesis in all SSNHL patients with different audiogram shapes. The predictive value of these hematologic markers needs further research in the future.

Keywords

sudden sensorineural hearing loss audiogram shapes neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio systemic immune index inflammation

Introduction

Sudden sensorineural hearing Loss (SSNHL) is a common emergency in otolaryngology. SSNHL is commonly defined as SNHL of ≥30 dB over at least 3 frequencies occurring within 3 days. Hearing loss can be detected in any frequencies on an audiogram; 13.29% of patients had low-frequency (up-sloping pattern) hearing loss and 27.97% of patients had high-frequency (down-sloping pattern) hearing loss, while 58.74% of patients had hearing loss in all frequencies (flat, 30.77% or profound, 27.97%).¹ The audiogram shape may indicate different pathogenesis in the inner ear although its real pathogenesis is still unknown. According to the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) 2015 guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of sudden deafness, SSNHL with low-frequency hearing loss is probably caused by membranous labyrinthine hydrops, high-frequency hearing loss by hair cell injury, flat hearing loss by stria vascular dysfunction or inner ear vasospasm, and profound hearing loss by inner ear vascular embolism or thrombosis.² The audiogram shape is also one of the factors that affect the prognosis for hearing recovery. Other factors affecting the prognosis include the severity of hearing loss, patient’s age, and the presence of vertigo.³

Inflammation and vascular risk factors may play main roles in SSNHL.⁴ Recent studies reported that several inflammatory indicators in peripheral blood, such as white blood cells (WBC), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR) values, were elevated in SSNHL patients and related to the prognosis: the higher the levels of indicators, the poorer the prognosis.^5-10 Systemic immune index (SII), a superior prognostic factor in certain diseases (eg endometrial cancer and acute ischemic stroke^11-13), can also predict the prognosis of SSNHL.¹³ However, the roles of these inflammatory indicators in SSNHL patients with different audiogram shape are still unknown. Therefore, in this study, we retrospectively analyzed peripheral blood inflammatory indicators in SSNHL patients to explore immune-inflammatory responses and their potential prognostic value in SSNHL patients with different audiogram shapes. The present study was approved by the ethics committee of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School (IRB2021-459-02).

Methods

Patient Enrollment Criteria

We retrospectively analyzed 110 SSNHL patients who were hospitalized in the Department of Otolaryngology, Jinling Hospital Qinhuai Medical Center of Nanjing University, and Nanjing integrated traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Hospital Affiliated with Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine from January 2019 to September 2021. The inclusion criteria included ① the diagnostic criteria of SSNHL published by CMA was met²; ② first time onset of unilateral hearing loss; ③ no steroid treatment was received before hospitalization; ④ the whole course of treatment was completed without interruption; ⑤ all hearing test data was collected before and after treatment; ⑥ acoustic neuroma and other immune-inflammatory inner ear diseases were excluded by auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing, internal auditory canal MRI scans, and other laboratory tests; and ⑦ patients with severe cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or liver and kidney diseases were excluded. Seventy-five healthy volunteers were enrolled as the normal control group.

Audiology Evaluation

All 110 patients were evaluated with pure tone audiometry, impedance audiometry, and ABR tests before and after treatment. According to the CMA guidelines,² initial audiograms were classified into 4 types: ① low-frequency hearing loss: pure tong average (PTA) in frequencies of .25-1 kHz was increased equal to or greater than 20 dB; ② high-frequency hearing loss: PTA in frequencies of 2-8 kHz (at least in 4k and 8k Hz) was increased equal to or greater than 20 dB; ③ flat type: PTA in frequencies from .25 to 8 kHz was increased equal to or less than 80 dB; and ④profound type: PTA in frequencies from .25 to 8 kHz was increased greater than 80 dB.²

Hematology Evaluation

Fasting venous blood was collected from each patient before steroid treatment on the second day after admission to avoid the effects of steroids on leukocyte counts.¹⁴ Numbers of white blood cells, neutrophils, lymphocytes, and platelets were counted using a fully automated blood cell analyzer. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, MLR, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and SII were then calculated. Systemic immune index = platelets × neutrophils/lymphocytes.

Treatment and Efficacy Criteria

A daily infusion of 87.5mg Ginkgo biloba extract (Taiwan Jisheng Chemical Pharmaceutical Co. LTD) was administrated immediately after admission. Systemic methylprednisolone (Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, 80 mg/day for 4 days followed by 40 mg/day for 3 days and 20 mg/day for 3 days) was started on day 2 after admission. Lidocaine venous infusion (lidocaine .2 g + normal saline 250 mL/day) or acupuncture treatment was added for patients with severe tinnitus. The treatment course was 7 to 10 days. A post-treatment hearing test was conducted before discharge. Treatment efficacy was determined according to the criteria of the sudden hearing loss guidelines.² Pure tong average improvement in the affected frequencies <15 dB was defined as ineffective recovery, ≥ 15 dB but <30 dB as effective recovery, and recovery to normal levels as complete recovery.² All patients were followed up for more than one month after discharge.

Statistical Analysis

SPSS 25.0 was applied for statistical analysis. All data were presented as x ± s. ANOVA was used in comparisons among multiple groups and followed by Bonferroni post-test. The F-test was used in comparisons between groups, the independent samples t-test for inflammatory indicators between patients and normal controls, and the χ² test for comparison of treatment efficacy among patients with different audiogram shapes and was followed by partitions of χ² test for post-test. An ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve between inflammatory index and prognosis was analyzed by bivariate correlation. A P-value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Comparison of General Clinical Data

A total of 110 SSNHL cases were included in the present study, and 75 healthy volunteers were enrolled as the normal control group. There was no significant difference in baseline information between the control group and the SSNHL group (all P > .05, Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparison of Baseline Information Between the SSNHL Group and the Control Group.

	SSNHL (n = 110)	Control (n = 75)	F/χ²	P
Age (years)	44.1 ± 13.1	43.0 ± 17.4	F = .23	.63
Gender (M/F)	56/54	33/42	χ² = .85	.44

In the SSNHL group, there were 29 patients with low-frequency hearing loss (26.36%), 31 patients with flat hearing loss (28.18%), 23 patients with profound hearing loss (20.9%), and 27 patients with high-frequency hearing loss (24.55%). There was no significant difference in age, gender, and average interval from onset to blood sampling (all P > .05), while a significant difference was found in the initial PTA among these 4 subgroups (P < .01, Table 2). Further comparisons of the initial PTA among 4 subgroups were performed. Significant differences were observed between subgroups (all P < .01) except between the high-frequency and flat subgroups (P > .05, Table 3). These results demonstrate that the low-frequency subgroup had the lowest hearing loss and the profound subgroup had the greatest hearing loss, while the high-frequency and flat subgroups had similar levels of hearing loss in the present study (Table 3).

Table 2.

Comparison of Baseline Information among 4 Subgroups of SSNHL Patients (n = 110).

	Low-Frequency	High-Frequency	Flat	Profound	F/χ²	P
Age (years)	40.5 ± 11.3	41.6 ± 12.7	46.4 ± 15.4	48.6 ± 11.4	F = 2.23	.09
Gender (M/F)	14/15	15/12	19/12	8/15	χ² = 1.65	.76
Interval from onset (days)	7.1 ± 6.1	6.0 ± 4.5	8.4 ± 5.3	7.0 ± 6.5	F = .88	.45
Initial PTA (dB)	49.6 ± 10.8	62.4 ± 11.9	66.5 ± 11.3	88.2 ± 6.1	F = 59.5	<.01

Table 3.

Multiple Statistic Comparisons of Initial PTA Between Subgroups of SSNHL Patients (n = 110).

	Low-Frequency	High-Frequency	Flat	Profound
Low-frequency	/	<.01	<.01	<.01
High-frequency	<.01	/	.438	<.01
Flat	<.01	.438	/	<.01
Profound	<.01	<.01	<.01	/

Comparison of Treatment Efficacy Among Hearing Loss Subgroups

Of the 110 patients, effective recovery was observed in 75 patients, while ineffective recovery was seen in 35 patients. Therefore, the total effective efficiency was 68.2%. Consistent with a previous report,³ the best recovery was observed in patients with low-frequency hearing loss, and the worst was in patients with profound hearing loss. Significant differences were observed in total treatment efficiency among the 4 subgroups (χ² = 11.86, P = .008), as well as between the low-frequency and flat subgroups, and between the low-frequency and profound subgroups (all P < .01). Significant differences were observed in the complete recovery rates among the 4 subgroups (χ² = 23.09, P < .01), as well as between the low-frequency and high-frequency subgroups, between the low-frequency and flat subgroups, and between the low-frequency and profound subgroups (all P < .01, Figure 1). These results may indicate that not only the degree of hearing loss but also the range of damage in the cochlea affects treatment effects.

Figure 1.

Comparison of treatment efficacy in SSNHL patients with different audiogram shapes. The highest recovery rate was observed in patients with low-frequency hearing loss, while the lowest was in patients with profound hearing loss. Significant differences were observed between the low-frequency and flat subgroups, and between the low-frequency and profound subgroups (** all P < .01). Significant differences were observed in the complete recovery rates between the low-frequency and high-frequency subgroups, between the low-frequency and flat subgroups (** all P < .01), and between the low-frequency and profound subgroups (*** P < .001).

Comparison of Inflammatory Indices in SSNHL Patients and the Control Group

Compared to the normal control group, NLR, MLR, and SII before treatment were significantly higher in all 4 hearing loss subgroups (all P < .01, Table 4). These results suggest that inflammation may be involved in the pathogenesis of SSNHL. However, PLR was not significantly changed in any hearing loss subgroup compared to the normal control group (all P > .05, Table 4), indicating the number of platelets was normal in SSNHL patients, and vascular embolism or thrombosis may be not involved in the pathogenesis of SSNHL.

Table 4.

Comparison of NLR, PLR, MLR, and SII Between the Hearing Loss Subgroups and the Control Group.

Group	N	NLR	PLR	MLR	SII
Low-frequency	29	3.21 ± 2.24^*	112.22 ± 46.15	.24 ± .14^*	759.14 ± 663.45^*
High-frequency	27	3.29 ± 1.57^*	113.23 ± 36.24	.26 ± .85^*	680.91 ± 313.93^*
Flat-type	31	3.84 ± 2.52^*	114.28 ± 44.36	.31 ± .36^*	838.23 ± 562.15^*
Profound	23	3.14 ± 1.62^*	118.08 ± 41.69	.21 ± .06^*	685.85 ± 432.32^*
Control group	75	1.73 ± .50	118.56 ± 32.01	.16 ± .12	427.13 ± 168.43

*P < .01.

Comparison of Each Inflammatory Indicator Among the Four Subgroups

We further compared the inflammatory indicators NLR, PLR, MLR, and SII among the 4 subgroups of SSNHL patients, and no significant difference was observed (all P > .05, Table 5). This result suggests a similar degree of inflammatory responses in all 4 subgroups of SSNHL patients.

Table 5.

Inflammatory Indicators Statistics among the 4 Subgroups.

Value of Number	NLR	PLR	MLR	SII
F	.701	.090	1.202	.578
P	.554	.965	.313	.630

Predictive Value of Inflammatory Indicators in SSNHL

We used an ROC curve to examine the clinical sensitivity and specificity for every possible cut-off for each indicator. We ranked each indicator according to the prognosis of each patient (effective as 1 and ineffective as 0) to obtain ROC and then calculated the area under the curve (AUC). Area under the curve of NLR, PLR, MLR, and SII were .5–.7 (all P > .05, Table 6). These results suggest that these pre-treatment indicators in the peripheral blood may not be sensitive enough to predict the prognosis of SSNHL since all subgroups had similar NLR, PLR, MLR, and SII (Table 6).

Table 6.

Prognostic Value of Inflammatory Indicators.

Variable	AUC	Standard Error	P	95% Confidence Interval
Variable	AUC	Standard Error	P	Lower Limit	Upper Limit
NLR	.551	.056	.388	.441	.662
PLR	.540	.056	.502	.429	.650
MLR	.566	.057	.270	.454	.677
SII	.535	.057	.557	.423	.647

Discussion

The etiology of SSNHL remains unknown in the majority of patients, and therefore their hearing loss is still classified as idiopathic. Numerous hypotheses about the pathogenesis of idiopathic SSNHL have been proposed. The most popular and widely accepted theories include vascular compromise,¹⁵ cochlear membrane rupture,¹⁶ viral infection,^17,18 and autoimmune responses.^19,20 Therefore, identifying potential causes in each individual patient may help to develop personalized treatments. Use of peripheral blood indicators to study inflammatory and immune responses in SSNHL patients has been reported in recent years.^21-23 The advantages of these hematological markers include that they are convenient and cheap and the results are available almost immediately. Other more expensive and inconvenient biomarkers, such as DNA (such as GRHL2), RNA (miR-183), proteins (prestin), autoantibodies, and metabolites, have also been reported in SSNHL patients.^24-26

It is well known that NLR and MLR are associated with inflammatory activity, and SII plus NLR and PLR may indicate vascular endothelial injury, atherosclerosis, and local microartery inflammation.^27,28 In the present study, regardless of the audiogram shape, all SSNHL patients had elevated white blood cells, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as higher NLR, MLR, and SII compared to normal controls. These results indicate immune and inflammatory responses may be involved in all SSNHL patients regardless of the hearing loss levels and frequencies involved.

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio has been used as a marker for peripheral arterial occlusion diseases such as arteriosclerosis and arterial thrombosis.²⁹ High PLR was reported in SSNHL patients.^6,27 However, in the present study, all patients had a normal PLR indicating vascular compromise, such as cochlear artery embolism or thrombosis, may not be a major pathogenesis in SSNHL. The current results also suggest that immune and inflammatory responses in the cochlea may be a common pathophysiology to all SSNHL patients.

Some studies found that NLR was more closely related to the prognosis compared to PLR.^27,30,31 Most previous studies demonstrate higher NLR and PLR levels may indicate poor prognosis.^27,30,31 However, in one previous study, elevated NLR and PLR may have indicated a better prognosis to SSNHL patients with up-sloping audiograms and mild hearing loss.⁶ In the present study, we have not found any prognostic value of these indicators in SSNHL. All patients, recovered or non-recovered, had similar levels of NLR, PLR, MLR, and SII. Therefore, these markers might be not suitable for predicting the prognosis of SSNHL.

Consistent with previous studies,^9,22,27,28 we found the audiogram shape and the degree of hearing loss were closely related to the prognosis of SSNHL. In the present study, about 1/4 of patients who had low-frequency and mild hearing loss had the best recovery. About 1/5 of patients who had profound hearing loss had the worst recovery, indicating the audiogram shape and the degree of hearing loss predict the prognosis. The profound hearing loss group might have broad and profound damage in the cochlea.³²

Other biomarkers have also been used in SSNHL patients. Wang and his colleagues have reported that serum levels of NLRP3, Caspase-1, IL-6, and TNF-α were negatively correlated with the prognosis of patients with sudden deafness. They also observed significant differences among patients with different audiogram shapes.³³ These results suggest that NLRP3, Caspase-1, IL-6, and TNF-α may be better markers than the markers we used in reflecting the inflammatory status in the inner ear in SSNHL patients. Activated NLRP3, the inflammasome in cochlear immune cells, induces IL-1β secretion in the cochlea. This pathway could be a common pathological basis of multiple inner ear diseases, including SSNHL.³⁴ Therefore, more studies are needed to address the prognostic value and pathophysiological functions of these biomarkers in SSNHL patients in the future.

In the present study, we retrospectively analyzed peripheral blood inflammatory indicators in SSNHL patients with different audiogram shapes. Unfortunately, only pre-treatment data was available in these SSNHL patients and the follow-up period was short. Therefore, prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up period are needed in the future.

Conclusion

Elevated NLR, MLR, and SII may indicate the involvement of immuno-inflammatory responses in all SSNHL patients.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Drs. Xiaoping Du and Zachary Yokell in Hough Ear Institute, USA, for critically reviewing the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by National Natural Science Funds of China (81670931), Nanjing Medical Science and Technology Development Key project (ZKX-21012) and Special Fund for Clinical Research of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (2022-LCYJ-MS-01).

Ethical/Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants prior to the enrollment of this study.

ORCID iD

Yao Yuting

References

Watanabe

Suzuki

. Analysis of the audiogram shape in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss using a cluster analysis. Ear Nose Throat J. 2018;97(7):E36-E40. doi:10.1177/014556131809700706

Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery; Society of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Chinese Medical Association . Guideline of diagnosis and treatment of sudden deafness (2015). Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2015;50(6):443-447.

Kuhn

Heman-Ackah

Shaikh

Roehm

. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A review of diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Trends Amplif. 2011;15(3):91-105. doi:10.1177/1084713811408349

Marx

Younes

Chandrasekhar

, et al. International consensus (ICON) on treatment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2018;135(1S):S23-S28. doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2017.12.011

Yoon

Kim

Lee

Jang

. Inflammatory cytokines and mononuclear cells in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. J Laryngol Otol. 2019;133(2):95-101. doi:10.1017/S0022215119000100

Sancaktar

Ağrı

Çeçen

Akgül

Çelebi

. The prognostic value of circulating inflammatory cell counts in sudden sensorineural hearing loss and the effect of cardiovascular risk factors. Ear Nose Throat J. 2020;99(7):464-469. doi:10.1177/0145561320920968

Zhang

Weng

, et al. Selected blood inflammatory and metabolic parameters predicted successive bilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Dis Markers. 2019;2019:7165257. doi:10.1155/2019/7165257

Doo

Kim

, et al. Biomarkers suggesting favorable prognostic outcomes in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(19):7248. doi:10.3390/ijms21197248

Lim

Kim

Park

Cho

Lee

. Predictive values of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and other prognostic factors in pediatric idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;120:134-139. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.02.023

10.

Lee

Hong

Kim

, et al. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in children with sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A retrospective study. Acta Otolaryngol. 2017;137(1):35-38. doi:10.1080/00016489.2016.1217561

11.

Huang

Chen

Zhu

, et al. Postoperative systemic immune-inflammation index (SII): A superior prognostic factor of endometrial cancer. Front Surg. 2021;8:704235. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2021.704235

12.

Hou

Wang

Luo

, et al. Systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) but not platelet-albumin-bilirubin (PALBI) grade is associated with severity of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Int J Neurosci. 2021;131(12):1203-1208. doi:10.1080/00207454.2020.1784166

13.

Fasano

Pertinhez

Tribi

, et al. Laboratory assessment of sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A case-control study. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(10):2375-2381. doi:10.1002/lary.26514

14.

Edelstone

Mueller-Heubach

Caritis

. Effects of dexamethasone on leukocyte counts in pregnant sheep and fetal lambs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;131(6):677-681. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(78)90831-1

15.

Mosnier

Stepanian

Baron

, et al. Cardiovascular and thromboembolic risk factors in idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A case-control study. Audiol Neuro Otol. 2011;16(1):55-66. doi:10.1159/000312640

16.

Bai

Chen

, et al. N-acetylcysteine combined with dexamethasone treatment improves sudden sensorineural hearing loss and attenuates hair cell death caused by ROS stress. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:659486. doi:10.3389/fcell.2021.659486

17.

Jeong

Choi

. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss after COVID-19 vaccination. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;113:341-343. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.10.025

18.

Chen

Zhang

. Role of viral infection in sudden hearing loss. J Int Med Res. 2019;47(7):2865-2872. doi:10.1177/0300060519847860

19.

Lee

Kim

Bok

Kim

Choi

Kim

. Identification of evidence for autoimmune pathology of bilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss using proteomic analysis. Clin Immunol. 2017;183:24-35. doi:10.1016/j.clim.2017.06.008

20.

Toubi

Ben-David

Kessel

Halas

Sabo

Luntz

. Immune-mediated disorders associated with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2004;113(6):445-449. doi:10.1177/000348940411300605

21.

Zhao

Gao

Zhang

. [Correlation study of peripheral blood inflammatory factors in patients with sudden deafness]. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2019;33(8):688-691. doi:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2019.08.002

22.

Lee

Lin

Fang

Jing

. [The correlation between plasma fibrinogen level and different types of sudden sensorineural hearing loss]. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2019;33(5):425-428. doi:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1781.2019.05.010

23.

Guo

Liu

. The roles played by blood inflammatory parameters in sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Nose Throat J. 2021. doi:10.1177/0145561320960355

24.

Lin

Teng

Lan

Sun

. GRHL2 genetic polymorphisms may confer a protective effect against sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Mol Med Rep. 2016;13(3):2857-2863. doi:10.3892/mmr.2016.4871

25.

Hwang

Park

, et al. Circulating microRNAs as potentially new diagnostic biomarkers of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol. 2020;140(12):1013-1020. doi:10.1080/00016489.2020.1810859

26.

Sun

Xuan

Zhou

Yuan

Xue

. A preliminary report on the investigation of prestin as a biomarker for idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Nose Throat J. 2020;99(8):528-531. doi:10.1177/0145561319849949

27.

Qiao

Wang

Bai

Zheng

. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Med Princ Pract. 2019;28(1):23-27. doi:10.1159/000494556

28.

Kumbul

YÇ

Yasan

Tüz

, et al. Prognostic evaluation of systemic immune inflammation index in sudden idiopathic sensorineural hearing loss. Med J SDU. 2020;27(4):455-461. doi:10.17343/sdutfd.742573

29.

Gary

Pichler

Belaj

, et al. Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio: A novel marker for critical limb ischemia in peripheral arterial occlusive disease patients. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e67688. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067688

30.

Chen

Zhang

Wang

. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts diagnosis and prognosis of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltim). 2018;97(38):e12492. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000012492

31.

Kum

Ozcan

Baklaci

, et al. Investigation of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and mean platelet volume in sudden hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;81(6):636-641. doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.08.009

32.

Souza

Hoover

. The physiologic and psychophysical consequences of severe-to-profound hearing loss. Semin Hear. 2018;39(4):349-363. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1670698

33.

Wang

Zhang

. Correlation analysis of NLRP3 inflammasome, Caspase-1, IL-6, TNF-α and the rehabilitation effect of sudden deafness. Ting Li Xue Yu Yan Yu Ji Bing Za Zhi. 2022;30(4):406-409. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-7299.2022.04.015

34.

Nakanishi

Kawashima

Kurima

, et al. NLRP3 mutation and cochlear autoinflammation cause syndromic and nonsyndromic hearing loss DFNA34 responsive to anakinra therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(37):E7766-E7775. doi:10.1073/pnas.1702946114

Inflammatory Indicators in Peripheral Blood in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss Patients With Different Audiogram Shapes

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Patient Enrollment Criteria

Audiology Evaluation

Hematology Evaluation

Treatment and Efficacy Criteria

Statistical Analysis

Results

Comparison of General Clinical Data

Comparison of Treatment Efficacy Among Hearing Loss Subgroups

Comparison of Inflammatory Indices in SSNHL Patients and the Control Group

Comparison of Each Inflammatory Indicator Among the Four Subgroups

Predictive Value of Inflammatory Indicators in SSNHL

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical/Consent Statement

ORCID iD

References