Datasheet1_Predictive value of the inconsistency between the residual and post-PCI QFR for prognosis in PCI patients.docx

IntroductionTo investigate the prognostic value of the consistency between the residual quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and postpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) QFR in patients undergoing revascularization.MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective, observational study. All enrolled patients were divided into five groups according to the ΔQFR (defined as the value of the post-PCI QFR minus the residual QFR): (1) Overanticipated group; (2) Slightly overanticipated group; (3) Consistent group; (4) Slightly underanticipated group; and (5) Underanticipated group. The primary outcome was the 5-year target vessel failure (TVF).ResultsA total of 1373 patients were included in the final analysis. The pre-PCI QFR and post-PCI QFR were significantly different among the five groups. TVF within 5 years occurred in 189 patients in all the groups. The incidence of TVF was significantly greater in the underanticipated group than in the consistent group (P = 0.008), whereas no significant differences were found when comparing the underanticipated group with the other three groups. Restricted cubic spline regression analysis showed that the risk of TVF was nonlinearly related to the ΔQFR. A multivariate Cox regression model revealed that a ΔQFR≤ −0.1 was an independent risk factor for TVF.ConclusionsThe consistency between the residual QFR and post-PCI QFR may be associated with the long-term prognosis of patients. Patients whose post-PCI QFR is significantly lower than the residual QFR may be at greater risk of TVF. An aggressive PCI strategy for lesions is anticipated to have less functional benefit and may not result in a better clinical outcome.</p

The laser speckle perfusion imaging of the grafted liver after reperfusion and the control.

<p>The flux value (PU) gradually increased in the three transplantation groups. The flux value in these groups was much lower than the control. There was no difference among the three transplantation groups (P>0.05).</p

The typical pathological changes of the liver at one month in each group.

<p><b>A. and C.</b> In group 1 and group 3, the hepatocytes were nearly normal. Mild cellular infiltration and ductular proliferation were seen. Minimal sinusoidal congestion and septal fibrosis were found. <b>B.</b> In group 2, extensive ductular proliferation presented in the area of the portal tracts. The hepatic sinuses dilated, and severe passive congestion was found within them. Necrosis of hepatocytes occurred to some extent in this area. <b>D.</b> In the control group, the hepatocytes were normal and the liver lobular architecture was intact.</p

Details of the time-related metrics in each group.

<p><b>A. and C.</b> Group 1 had the longest anhepatic time and recipient’s time. Group 2 and group 3 showed no significant difference in these two items. <b>B.</b> Group 1 expended the shortest time for the donor, followed by group 3. The time for the donor in Group 2 was the longest. <b>D.</b> Group 3 had the shortest total operation time. The total operation time between group 1 and group 2 were similar. * Versus group 2 or group 3 (P<0.05). # Versus group 2 (P<0.05). ** Versus group 1 or group 2 (P<0.05).</p

Liver and spleen weight of the survival recipients and the controls.

#<p>Group 1 versus group 3 versus group 4 (P>0.05).</p>*<p>Versus group 1, 3, 4 (P<0.05).</p

The elastic ratios of the transplantation groups and the control group.

<p>The elastic ratio in group 2 was the greatest, followed by group 1 and group 3. The elastic ratio in the control group was the lowest. There was no difference between group 1 and group 3. *Group 2 versus group 1, group 3, group 4 (P<0.01). **Control group versus group1 or group 3 (P<0.01).</p

histological semi-quantitative score of the survivors’ livers.

*<p>Group 2 versus group 1, 3 (P<0.05).</p>#<p>Group 1 versus group 2 versus group 3 (P>0.05).</p><p>CI, cellular infiltration; DP, ductular proliferation; SC, sinusoidal congestion; SF, septal fibrosis.</p

The flux value (PU) of the grafted liver after reperfusion and the controls.

#<p>Group 1 versus group 2 versus group 3 (P>0.05);</p>*<p>Versus group 1, 2, 3 (P<0.05).</p

Anatomical Study of the Liver Transplantation-Related Vessels.

*<p>the IHVC segment between the right lower lobe and the right renal vein;</p>#<p>the IHVC segment between the left renal vein and the left iliolumbar vein.</p><p>ASHVC, the abdominal segment of the suprahepatic vena cava; PV, the portal vein between the right lobe branch and the gastroduodenal vein; TSHVC, the thoracic segment of the suprahepatic vena cava.</p

Details of the modified veno-lined stent technique.

<p><b>A.</b> All of the four phrenic veins (white arrow) of the graft liver were pierced and ligated reliably. <b>B.</b> The modified three-groove stent used in the modified veno-lined stent technique (left, black arrow for groove). The donor’s IHVC segment between the left renal vein and the left iliolumbar vein was covered over the stent and ligated on both ends (right). <b>C.</b> A polymethylmethacrylate stick was used to hold the vessel in place and to prevent torsion of the vessel. <b>D.</b> The modified propeller with a blunt head (black arrow) and an annular base (white arrow).</p