4.7 Article

Improvement in Aphasia Scores After Stroke Is Well Predicted by Initial Severity

Journal

STROKE
Volume 41, Issue 7, Pages 1485-1488

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.577338

Keywords

aphasia; behavioral neurology; brain recovery; cerebral infarct; speech therapy; stroke recovery

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [5R01-HD43249, 1P50-NS049060, K02-048099]
  2. Tananbaum Family Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-Most improvement from poststroke aphasia occurs within the first 3 months, but there remains unexplained variability in recovery. Recently, we reported a strong correlation between initial impairment and change scores in motor recovery at 90 days. We wanted to determine whether aphasia recovery (defined as a change from baseline to 90 days) shows a comparably strong correlation and whether the relation was similar to that in motor recovery. Methods-Twenty-one stroke patients had aphasia scores on the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) obtained on stroke admission (WAB(initial)) and at 90 days (WAB(3) (mo)). The relation between actual change (Delta) scores (defined as WAB(3) (mo) - WAB(initial)) and WAB(initial) was calculated in multiple-regression analysis. Results-Regression analysis demonstrated that WAB(initial) was highly correlated with Delta WAB (R(2) = 0.81, P<0.001) and that, in addition, the relation between WABinitial and Delta WAB was proportional, such that patients recovered 0.73 of maximal potential recovery (WAB(maximum) - WAB(initial)). Conclusions-We show that, like motor recovery, there is a highly predictable relation between aphasia recovery and initial impairment, which is also proportional in nature. The comparability of recovery from motor and language impairment suggests that common mechanisms may govern reduction of poststroke neurologic impairment across different functional domains and that they could be the focus of therapeutic intervention. (Stroke. 2010; 41: 1485-1488.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available