Relative improvement in language vs. motor functions with reperfusion therapies for large vessel occlusion

When weighing potential risks versus benefits of reperfusion therapy, the functions likely to recover if blood flow can be restored should be considered. Because deep and motor areas often infarct relatively early in acute stroke, we hypothesized that reperfusion therapies improve predominantly cortical functions more than motor function. In this retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients with acute stroke due to large vessel occlusion, we evaluated percent improvement (mean change in score/maximum score) for different items of the National Institutes of Health Score Scale with and without endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), and/or intravenous thrombolysis. In total, 290 patients met the inclusion criteria. For all outcome measures there were significant effects of treatment group (p < 0.0001 for all), with the greatest change in the EVT + thrombolysis group, then EVT only group, followed by thrombolysis only, followed by no intervention. Differences between EVT + thrombolysis and EVT only were not significant (p = 0.30 to 0.79 across outcomes). For patients with aphasia and/or right sided weakness before treatment, the percent change in language was significantly greater than the percent change in weakness (29.8% vs. 12.7%; t(93) = 5.3;p < 0.0001). Greater percent improvement in language was observed in all treatment groups (p = 0.0003 to 0.03 across treatment groups). After acute ischemic stroke due to LVO, improvements occur in all neurological functions with intervention. However, gains in language are even greater than gains in motor function in the same patients. Few patients had neglect before treatment, but of those who did, the majority improved, and most (92.8%) with EVT.