RESUMEN
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To investigate the clinical implications of reperfusion arrhythmias during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Data from 228 AMI patients in whom the infarct-related artery (IRA) were successfully recanalized by primary PCI were retrospectively analyzed. The 228 patients were divided into 2 groups: myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (MIRI) group (n=119) in whom MIRI events occurred within minutes after successful recanalization of IRA, and non-MIRI group (n=109). The 119 patients in MIRI group were further divided into 3 subgroups: severe bradycardia with hypotension (brady-arrhythmia subgroup), lethal ventricular arrhythmias requiring electrical cardioversion (tachy-arrhythmia subgroup), and IRA antegrade flow less than or equal to TIMI 2 grade without angiographic evidence of abrupt closure (no-reflow subgroup).</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>(1) Clinical and angiographic data: Compared with non-MIRI group, MIRI group was characterized by more inferior infarct location, shorter ischemic duration, more frequently right coronary artery as IRA, more diseased vessels, more often TIMI 0 grade of initial antegrade flow in IRA, less pre-infarction angina, more renal insufficiency, and higher in-hospital mortality (13.4% vs. 4.6%, P=0.021). (2) The peak CK level was remarkably lower in brady-arrhythmia subgroup than that in non-MIRI group (2010 IU/L vs. 2521 IU/L, P=0.039). The peak CK or CK-MB level was notably higher in no-reflow subgroup than in non-MIRI group (4573 IU/L, 338 IU/L, respectively, P=0.000). (3) Left ventricular ejection fraction in no-reflow subgroup was significantly lower than in non-MIRI group (38.7% +/- 8.3% vs. 51.2% +/- 8.1%, P=0.000), left ventricular end-diastolic volume in no-reflow subgroup was greater than that in tachy-arrhythmia subgroup [(135 +/- 32) ml vs. (105 +/- 19) ml, P=0.029].</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Reperfusion arrhythmias may imply the existence of much survived myocardium and do not enhance myocardial damage, while no-reflow increases myocardial injury and induces permanent impairment of cardiac function.</p>