Effect of sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and ileal transposition on myocardial ischaemia–reperfusion injury in non-obese non-diabetic rats

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. (A) Food consumption. (B) Effects of bariatric surgery on rat body weight. CON control, SHAM sham surgery, IT ileal transposition, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, SG sleeve gastrectomy.

• 

  Figure 2. Levels of glucose and hormones in the oral glucose tolerance test. (A) Fasting plasma glucose levels. (B) Plasma glucose levels during oral glucose tolerance test. (C) Area under the curve of glucose levels. (D) Blood levels of insulin within 2 h after glucose loading. (E) Blood levels of leptin within 2 h after glucose loading. (F) Blood levels of ghrelin within 2 h after glucose loading. (G) Blood levels of GLP-1 within 2 h after glucose loading. (H) AUC of GLP-1 levels. (a) The difference between the control group and the other groups is significant at p < 0.05. (b) The difference between the sham surgery and bariatric surgery groups is significant at p < 0.05. Mean ± standard error of mean. AUC area under the curve, CON control, SHAM sham surgery, IT ileal transposition, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, SG sleeve gastrectomy, GLP-1 glucagon-like peptide-1.

• 

  Figure 3. Flowchart showing the exact numbers of animals in each experimental group at different stages of the protocol, as well as the numbers of excluded/dead animals. CON control, SHAM sham surgery, IT ileal transposition, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, SG sleeve gastrectomy.

• 

  Figure 4. Myocardial area at risk and infarct size in the experimental groups. (A) Area at risk expressed as a percentage of the whole slice area. (B) Infarct size expressed as a percentage of the area at risk. (C) Representative images of heart slices stained with Evans blue and triphenyltetrazolium chloride. n = 7, 9, 7, 6, and 7 for the CON, SHAM, IT, RYGB, and SG groups, respectively. *p < 0.05 versus the CON group. CON control, SHAM sham surgery, IT ileal transposition, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, SG sleeve gastrectomy, TTC triphenyltetrazolium chloride.

• 

  Figure 5. (A) Size of the no-reflow area expressed as a percentage of the area at risk. (B) Representative images of heart slices stained with Evans blue and indocyanine green. n = 7, 9, 7, 6, and 7 for the CON, SHAM, IT, RYGB and SG groups, respectively. *p < 0.05 versus the CON group. CON control, SHAM sham surgery, IT ileal transposition, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, SG sleeve gastrectomy, ICG indocyanine green.

• 

  Figure 6. (A) Size of blood stasis areas expressed as a percentage of the total slice area after quantifying 10 visual fields in the area at risk. (B) Representative histological images demonstrating blood stasis. n = 7, 9, 7, 6, and 7 for the CON, SHAM, IT, RYGB and SG groups, respectively. *p < 0.05 versus the CON group. CON control, SHAM sham surgery, IT ileal transposition, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, SG sleeve gastrectomy.

• 

  Figure 7. Experimental design. BS bariatric surgery, MI myocardial infarction, OGTT oral glucose tolerance test, CON control, SHAM sham surgery, IT ileal transposition, RYGB Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, SG sleeve gastrectomy.