BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no data comparing clinical outcomes of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer-everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BP-BES compared with DP-EES in patients undergoing complex PCI. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the SMART-DESK registry were stratified into 2 categories based on the complexity of PCI. Complex PCI was defined as having at least one of the following features: unprotected left main lesion, ≥2 lesions treated, total stent length >40 mm, minimal stent diameter ≤2.5 mm, or bifurcation as target lesion. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 1,999 patients, 1,145 (57.3%) underwent complex PCI: 521 patients were treated with BP-BES and 624 with DP-EES. In propensity-score matching analysis (481 pairs), the risks of TLF (3.8% vs. 5.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.578; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.246–1.359; p=0.209), cardiac death (2.5% vs. 2.5%, adjusted HR, 0.787; 95% CI, 0.244–2.539; p=0.689), TV-MI (0.5% vs. 0.4%, adjusted HR, 1.128; 95% CI, 0.157–8.093; p=0.905), and TLR (1.1% vs. 2.9%, adjusted HR, 0.390; 95% CI, 0.139–1.095; p=0.074) did not differ between 2 stent groups after complex PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of BP-BES were comparable to those of DP-EES at 2 years after complex PCI. Our data suggest that use of BP-BES is acceptable, even for complex PCI.
Coronary Artery Disease ; Death ; Drug-Eluting Stents ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Myocardial Infarction ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Stents

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no data comparing clinical outcomes of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer-everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BP-BES compared with DP-EES in patients undergoing complex PCI. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the SMART-DESK registry were stratified into 2 categories based on the complexity of PCI. Complex PCI was defined as having at least one of the following features: unprotected left main lesion, ≥2 lesions treated, total stent length >40 mm, minimal stent diameter ≤2.5 mm, or bifurcation as target lesion. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 1,999 patients, 1,145 (57.3%) underwent complex PCI: 521 patients were treated with BP-BES and 624 with DP-EES. In propensity-score matching analysis (481 pairs), the risks of TLF (3.8% vs. 5.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.578; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.246–1.359; p=0.209), cardiac death (2.5% vs. 2.5%, adjusted HR, 0.787; 95% CI, 0.244–2.539; p=0.689), TV-MI (0.5% vs. 0.4%, adjusted HR, 1.128; 95% CI, 0.157–8.093; p=0.905), and TLR (1.1% vs. 2.9%, adjusted HR, 0.390; 95% CI, 0.139–1.095; p=0.074) did not differ between 2 stent groups after complex PCI. CONCLUSIONS Clinical outcomes of BP-BES were comparable to those of DP-EES at 2 years after complex PCI. Our data suggest that use of BP-BES is acceptable, even for complex PCI.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term survival rate and peri-implant marginal bone loss related to multiple risk factors including the clinician's experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four hundred twenty implants in 146 patients, who had involved a supportive periodontal therapy program every 3 to 6 months and had follow up data for at least 5 years, were selected as the study group. Peri-implant marginal bone loss, data of demographic, implant and surgical characteristics were collected from peri-apical radiographs and chart review. Implant survival was regarded as the remaining with radiographic marginal bone level in excess of 50% of the fixture length for any reason. RESULTS: The cumulative survival rate after 5 years of loading was 94.9%. In binary logistic regression analysis, smoking status (P = 0.033) and presence of spontaneous cover screw exposure (P < 0.001) were significantly related to 5-year survival of implants. In stepwise multiple regression analysis, smoking status (P < 0.001), type of abutment connection (P < 0.001) and implant surface (P = 0.033) were significantly related to peri-implant marginal bone level. And the year of resident was not statistically related to 5-year implant survival in simple logistic regression analysis (P = 0.171). CONCLUSION: Smoking status, spontaneous cover screw exposure, type of abutment connection and implant surface might influence the implant success. There was no significant correlation between the year of resident and implant failure.
Alveolar Bone Loss ; Dental Implants* ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Retrospective Studies* ; Risk Factors ; Smoke ; Smoking ; Survival Rate