Which stimulus should be used for auditory brainstem response in newborns; CE-Chirp® level specific versus Click stimulus

Objectives: Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR), the electrical responses in the neuronal pathways extending from the inner ear to the auditory cortex, are evaluated with auditory stimuli. ABR analysis evaluates waves I, III and V's absolute-latencies, amplitude values, interpeak-latencies, interaural-latency differences, and morphologies. This study aims to reveal the advantages of CE-Chirp® LS stimulus and its clinical uses to increase by comparing the amplitude, latency, and interpeak-latency differences of waves I, III, and V at 80 dB nHL and wave V at 60, 40, 20 dB nHL by using click and CE-Chirp® LS stimuli. Methods: 100 (54 boys, 46 girls) infants with normal hearing were included in the National Newborn Hearing Screening Program. With the click and CE-Chirp® LS ABR, the absolute latency and amplitude values of wave V at 20, 40, and 60 dB nHL, and the absolute-latency, interpeak-latency, and amplitude values of waves I, III, and V at 80 dB nHL are determined between stimuli and right-left ear. Results: When the wave V latency and amplitudes obtained at 80, 60, 40, and 20 dB nHL levels were examined between genders, and according to the risk factor, no significant difference was found between click and CE-Chirp® LS stimuli (p > 0.05). Waves I, III, and V absolute-latency, amplitudes were compared at 80 dB nHL and wave V absolute-latency, amplitudes at 60, 40, and 20 dB nHL; the amplitudes measured with CE-Chirp® LS were significantly higher than the click stimulus (p < 0.05). When two stimuli were compared for I-III and III-V interpeak-latency values at 80 dB nHL level, no significant difference was found between the two stimuli (p > 0.05). However, the I–V interpeak-latency value was statistically significantly decreased for two stimuli, regardless of the ear (p < 0.05). Conclusions: It is suggested to increase the use of CE-Chirp® LS stimulus with better morphology and amplitude in clinics, believing that it facilitates clinicians’ interpretation.