Traditional and non-traditional lipid parameters as risk factors for sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Chen, Xiaoyan; Zheng, Zhong; Liu, Ximeng; Huang, Jianuo; Xie, Daoyu; Feng, Yanmei

doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2024.101435

Xiaoyan Chen

statistical analysis and interpretation of data and wrote the first draft of the paper

revision of the article and approved the final published version to be published

Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Shanghai, China

Shanghai Key Laboratory of Sleep Disordered Breathing, Shanghai, China

1 These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Zhong Zheng

statistical analysis and interpretation of data and wrote the first draft of the paper

revision of the article and approved the final published version to be published

Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Shanghai, China

Shanghai Key Laboratory of Sleep Disordered Breathing, Shanghai, China

1 These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Ximeng Liu

responsible for the collection of blood samples and data

revision of the article and approved the final published version to be published

Hangzhou Normal University, Zhejiang Province, China

Jianuo Huang

responsible for the collection of blood samples and data

revision of the article and approved the final published version to be published

Hangzhou Normal University, Zhejiang Province, China

Daoyu Xie ^**Corresponding authors. E-mails:xiedaoyu_2010@163.com (D. Xie), ymfeng@sjtu.edu.cn (Y. Feng).

designed and supervised the project

revision of the article and approved the final published version to be published

Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Zhejiang Province, China

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8806-3978

Yanmei Feng ^**Corresponding authors. E-mails:xiedaoyu_2010@163.com (D. Xie), ymfeng@sjtu.edu.cn (Y. Feng).

designed and supervised the project

revision of the article and approved the final published version to be published

Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Shanghai, China

Shanghai Key Laboratory of Sleep Disordered Breathing, Shanghai, China

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8343-2006

*Corresponding authors. E-mails:xiedaoyu_2010@163.com (D. Xie), ymfeng@sjtu.edu.cn (Y. Feng).

1
These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures (5)
Tables (2)

Thumbnail

Fig. 1
Conditional logistic regression models comparing the control group with the Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL) group. Model 1 : Univariate logistic regression analysis comparing the control and SSNHL groups. Model 2: Logistic regression analysis adjusted for the confounding factors of age, gender, Body Mass ilndex (BMI), and hypertension. Model 3: Multivariate logistic regression analysis incorporating variables with a p-value < 0.001 from the initial analyses. * p-value < 0.05 denotes statistical significance.

Thumbnail

Fig. 2
Regression models comparing groups with hearing loss < 50 dB versus ≥ 50 dB. Model 1: Univariate logistic regression analysis for the different degrees of hearing loss. Model 2: Multivariate logistic regression analysis controlling for confounding factors including age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), hypertension, tinnitus, vertigo, ear fullness, and time to treatment initiation (days). Model 3: Forward logistic regression analysis including variables with a p-value < 0.01 from Model 1. *p-value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

Thumbnail

Fig. 3
Univariate logistic regression models among the different types of Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss (SSNHL). Model 1: Univariate logistic regression analysis comparing Partial Frequency descending SSNHL (PF-SSNHL) with All Frequency descending SSNHL (AF-SSNHL). Model 2: Univariate logistic regression analysis for the different degrees of hearing loss in PF-SSNHL. Model 3: Univariate logistic regression analysis for the different degrees of hearing loss in AF-SSNHL. * p-value < 0.05.

Thumbnail

Fig. 4
Correlation Heatmap. This heatmap depicts the strength of the correlations between lipid expression levels and degrees of hearing loss and gain. The size of each box indicates the magnitude of the correlation, while the color hue reflects the direction of the association. Deeper shades of red indicate a stronger positive correlation, whereas deeper shades of blue suggest a stronger negative correlation.

Thumbnail

Fig. 5
Logistic regression models comparing treatment efficacy between the effective and ineffective groups. Model 1: Univariate logistic regression analysis to compare the two groups based on treatment effectiveness. Model 2: Adjusted logistic regression analysis for confounding factors including age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), hypertension, tinnitus, vertigo, ear fullness, time to initiation of treatment (days), type of intervention, and degree of Hearing Loss (dBHL). *p <0.05 indicates statistical significance.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Baseline data for control and SSNHL participants.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Characteristics of SSNHL patients by hearing loss and prognosis.

Variables	Control (n = 226)	SSNHL (n = 452)	p-value
Baseline characteristics
Age (years)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	46.00 (36.00–57.00)	48.00 (35.00–59.75)	0.432
Gender (male, %)^b b Values were given as the number of cases and the percentage in parentheses.	95 (42.04%)	193 (42.70%)	0.869
BMI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	22.49 (20.79–24.78)	23.44 (21.22–25.39)	0.038
Hypertension (%)^b b Values were given as the number of cases and the percentage in parentheses.	22 (9.73%)	84 (18.58%)	0.003
Laboratory variables
TC (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	4.72 (4.00–5.28)	5.17(4.54–5.86)	<0.001
TG (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	0.91 (0.64–1.29)	0.82 (0.58–1.25)	0.248
HDL-C (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	1.38 (1.17–1.56)	1.41 (1.19–1.60)	0.244
LDL-C (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	2.63 (2.18–3.13)	3.01 (2.53–3.60)	<0.001
nonHDL-C (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	3.29 (2.71–3.83)	3.77(3.16–4.43)	<0.001
Lipoprotein a (mg/dL)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	12.85 (6.78–27.40)	11.54 (5.10–26.98)	0.434
APOA1 (mg/dL)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	129.00 (114.00–146.00)	131.00 (116.00–148.00)	0.368
APOB (mg/dL)	76.00 (64.75–89.00)	91.00 (76.00–107.75)	<0.001
APOE (mg/dL)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	3.95 (3.20–4.75)	4.58 (3.96–5.44)	<0.001
AIP^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	–0.17 (–0.36 to –0.02)	–0.23 (–0.40 to –0.02)	0.114
ATH index^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	1.43 (1.04–1.92)	1.87(1.18–2.86)	<0.001
Al^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	2.40 (1.94–2.96)	2.68 (2.08–3.41)	<0.001
CRI-I^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	3.40 (2.94–3.96)	3.68 (3.08–4.41)	<0.001
CRI-ll^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	1.96 (1.56–2.43)	2.20 (1.71–2.75)	<0.001
LCI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	8.34 (5.12–13.97)	8.91 (5.45–17.14)	0.023
cLTI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	40.75 (14.59–90.00)	36.65 (12.42–85.38)	0.214
cLPI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	–45.79 (–65.74 to –5.87)	–39.09 (–63.10–17.57)	0.141

Variables	Hearing loss			Therapeutic effect
Variables	< 50 dB (n = 190)	≥ 50 dB (n = 262)	P-value	Effective (n = 206)	Ineffective (n = 246)	P-value
Baseline characteristics
Age (years)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	44.00 (33.00–58.00)	51.00 (35.75–61.25)	0.012	43.00 (33.00–57.00)	52.00 (38.00–62.25)	0.001
Gender (male, %)^b b Values were given as the number of cases and the percentage in parentheses.	78 (41.05%)	115 (43.89%)	0.547	85 (41.26%)	108 (43.90%)	0.572
BMI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	22.88 (20.85–25.19)	23.51 (21.43–25.88)	0.060	23.44 (21.23–25.26)	23.15 (21.15–25.41)	0.965
Hypertension (%)^b b Values were given as the number of cases and the percentage in parentheses.	24 (12.63%)	60 (22.90%)	0.006	34 (16.51%)	50 (20.33%)	0.298
Tinnitus (%)^b b Values were given as the number of cases and the percentage in parentheses.	151 (79.47%)	195 (73.31%)	0.211	159 (77.19%)	187 (76.02%)	0.770
Vertigo (%)^b b Values were given as the number of cases and the percentage in parentheses.	50 (26.32%)	78 (29.77%)	0.421	52 (25.24%)	76 (30.89%)	0.184
Ear fullness (%)^b b Values were given as the number of cases and the percentage in parentheses.	107 (56.32%)	101 (38.55%)	<0.001	102 (49.52%)	106 (43.09%)	0.172
Type (AF-SSNHL, %)^b b Values were given as the number of cases and the percentage in parentheses.	76 (40.00%)	239 (91.22%)	<0.001	145 (70.39%)	171 (69.51%)	0.840
Time to treatment (days)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	5.00 (2.00–10.00)	4.00 (2.00–7.00)	0.079	4.00 (2.00–7.00)	5.00 (3.00–13.50)	0.001
Hearing loss (dBHL)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	33.00 (25.00–40.00)	80.50 (62.75–96.00)	<0.001	54.09 (34.50–79.00)	57.00 (33.75–88.25)	0.390
Hearing gain (dB)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	5.00 (–1.00–12.00)	11.50 (1.00–27.00)	<0.001	18.52 (13.00–31.25)	0.67 (–2.00–4.00)	<0.001
Laboratory variables
TC (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	5.03 (4.51–5.67)	5.30 (4.56–6.07)	0.048	5.27 (4.52–5.82)	5.09 (4.55–6.00)	0.658
TG (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	0.73 (0.56–1.08)	0.90 (0.60–1.39)	0.013	0.79 (0.57–1.25)	0.84 (0.60–1.25)	0.701
HDL-C (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	1.44 (1.21–1.64)	1.37 (1.17–1.58)	0.031	1.41 (1.20–1.62)	1.41 (1.17–1.58)	0.371
LDL-C (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	2.95 (2.52–3.38)	3.10 (2.54–3.75)	0.009	3.01 (2.54–3.59)	3.02 (2.53–3.63)	0.933
nonHDL-C (mmoL/L)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	3.62 (3.12–4.15)	3.87 (3.19–4.59)	0.004	3.75 (3.18–4.45)	3.77 (3.12–4.42)	0.91
Lipoprotein a (mg/dL)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	11.06 (5.30–27.36)	12.58 (5.06–25.15)	0.744	12.41 (5.28–27.10)	11.00 (4.98–26.95)	0.575
APOA1 (mg/dL)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	134.0 (118.0–150.0)	130.0 (114.0–145.0)	0.004	130.0 (117.8–146.3)	133.0 (113.0–149.3)	0.893
APOB (mg/dL)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	90.00 (76.00–103.25)	92.00 (76.00–110.00)	0.205	90.00 (77.00–108.00)	92.50 (76.00–107.00)	0.866
APOE (mg/dL)^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	4.53 (4.01–5.25)	4.61 (3.84–5.54)	0.598	4.63 (4.02–5.57)	4.54 (3.94–5.31)	0.401
AIP^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	–0.30 (–0.42–0.10)	–0.19 (–0.38–0.04)	0.001	–0.23 (–0.41–0.04)	–0.24 (–0.49–0.01)	0.587
ATH index^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	1.65 (1.01–2.59)	2.05 (1.20–3.09)	0.004	1.76 (1.13–2.86)	1.93 (1.14–2.93)	0.509
AI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	2.55 (2.00–3.14)	2.83 (2.18–3.58)	0.001	2.60 (2.11–3.31)	2.78 (2.05–3.45)	0.478
CRI-I^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	3.55 (3.00–4.14)	3.83 (3.18–4.58)	0.001	3.60 (3.11–4.31)	3.78 (3.05–4.45)	0.478
CRI-II^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	2.08 (1.60–2.54)	2.32 (1.80–2.84)	0.001	2.16 (1.74–2.66)	2.24 (1.70–2.79)	0.488
LCI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	8.21 (5.23–13.07)	10.05 (5.89–21.36)	0.001	8.44 (5.36–16.72)	9.21 (5.58–17.37)	0.536
cLTI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	34.11 (11.34–88.43)	39.40 (13.36–85.29)	0.36	36.04 (13.15–76.39)	36.79 (11.87–89.56)	0.869
cLPI^a a Values were given as median with its interquartile range (25–75th) in parentheses.	–39.35 (–63.37–17.99)	–38.32 (–62.82–17.70)	0.81	–40.10 (–63.97–18.46)	–38.56 (–62.22–17.57)	0.813

[1] *Corresponding authors. E-mails:xiedaoyu_2010@163.com (D. Xie), ymfeng@sjtu.edu.cn (Y. Feng).

Brasil

Brasil

Traditional and non-traditional lipid parameters as risk factors for sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Abstract

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

HIGHLIGHTS