First-line therapy for people with heart failure due to reduced systolic function should include angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ACE-I) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) if the person develops a long term cough as a side effect of the ACE-I. Use of medicines from this class is associated with improved survival and quality of life in people with heart failure.

Beta-adrenergic blocking agents (beta blockers) also form part of the first line of treatment, adding to the improvement in symptoms and mortality provided by ACE-I/ARB. The mortality benefits of beta blockers in people with systolic dysfunction who also have atrial fibrillation (AF) is more limited than in those who do not have AF. If the ejection fraction is not diminished (HFpEF), the benefits of beta blockers are more modest; a decrease in mortality has been observed but reduction in hospital admission for uncontrolled symptoms has not been observed.

In people who are intolerant of ACE-I and ARBs or who have significant kidney dysfunction, the use of combined hydralazine and a long-acting nitrate, such as isosorbide dinitrate, is an effective alternate strategy. This regimen has been shown to reduce mortality in people with moderate heart failure. It is especially beneficial in African-Americans (AA). In AAs who are symptomatic, hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (H+I) can be added to ACE-I or ARBs.

In people with markedly reduced ejection fraction, the use of an aldosterone antagonist, in addition to beta blockers and ACE-I, can improve symptoms and reduce mortality.

Second-line medications for CHF do not confer a mortality benefit. Digoxin is one such medication. Its narrow therapeutic window, a high degree of toxicity, and the failure of multiple trials to show a mortality benefit have reduced its role in clinical practice. It is now used in only a small number of people with refractory symptoms, who are in atrial fibrillation and/or who have chronic low blood pressure.

Diuretics have been a mainstay of treatment for treatment of fluid accumulation, and include diuretics classes such as loop diuretics, thiazide-like diuretic, and potassium-sparing diuretic. Although widely used, evidence on their efficacy and safety is limited, with the exception of mineralocorticoid antagonists such as spironolactone. Mineralocorticoid antagonists in those under 75 years old appear to decrease the risk of death. A recent Cochrane review found that in small studies, the use of diuretics appeared to have improved mortality in individuals with heart failure. However, the extent to which these results can be extrapolated to a general population is unclear due to the small number of participants in the cited studies.

Anemia is an independent factor in mortality in people with chronic heart failure. The treatment of anemia significantly improves quality of life for those with heart failure, often with a reduction in severity of the NYHA classification, and also improves mortality rates. The latest European guidelines (2012) recommend screening for iron-deficient anemia and treating with parenteral iron if anemia is found.

The decision to anticoagulate people with HF, typically with left ventricular ejection fractions <35% is debated, but generally, people with coexisting atrial fibrillation, a prior embolic event, or conditions which increase the risk of an embolic event such as amyloidosis, left ventricular noncompaction, familial dilated cardiomyopathy, or a thromboembolic event in a first-degree relative.

Until recently, it was generally assumed that the prognosis for individuals with diastolic dysfunction and associated intermittent pulmonary edema was better than those with systolic dysfunction. In fact, in two studies appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006, evidence was presented to suggest that the prognosis in diastolic dysfunction is the same as that in systolic dysfunction.

A person's risk of developing heart failure is inversely related to their level of physical activity. Those who achieved at least 500 MET-minutes/week (the recommended minimum by U.S. guidelines) had lower heart failure risk than individuals who did not report exercising during their free time; the reduction in heart failure risk was even greater in those who engaged in higher levels of physical activity than the recommended minimum.

Many factors influence the time course and extent of remodeling, including the severity of the injury, secondary events (recurrent ischemia or infarction), neurohormonal activation, genetic factors and gene expression, and treatment. Medications may attenuate remodeling. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been consistently shown to decrease remodeling in animal models or transmural infarction and chronic pressure overload. Clinical trials have shown that ACE inhibitor therapy after myocardial infarction leads to improved myocardial performance, improved ejection fraction, and decreased mortality compared to patients treated with placebo. Likewise, inhibition of aldosterone, either directly or indirectly, leads to improvement in remodeling. Carvedilol, a 3rd generation beta blocker, may actually reverse the remodeling process by reducing left ventricular volumes and improving systolic function. Early correction of congenital heart defects, if appropriate, may prevent remodeling, as will treatment of chronic hypertension or valvular heart disease. Often, reverse remodeling, or improvement in left ventricular function, will also be seen.

Despite increasing incidence of HFpEF effective inroads to therapeutics have been largely unsuccessful. Currently, recommendations for treatment are directed at symptom relief and co-morbid conditions. Frequently this involves administration of diuretics to relieve complications associated with volume overload, such as leg swelling and high blood pressure.

Commonly encountered conditions that must be treated for and have independent recommendations for standard of care include atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. There are particular factors unique to HFpEF that must be accounted for with therapy. Unfortunately, currently available randomized clinical trials addressing the therapeutic adventure for these conditions in HFpEF present conflicting or limited evidence.

Specific aspects of therapeutics should be avoided in HFpEF to prevent the deterioration of the condition. Considerations that are generalizable to heart failure include avoidance of a fast heart rate, elevations in blood pressure, development of ischemia, and atrial fibrillation. More specific to HFpEF include avoidance of preload reduction. As patients display normal ejection fraction but reduced cardiac output they are especially sensitive to changes in preloading and may rapidly display signs of output failure. This means administration of diuretics and vasodilators must be monitored carefully.

HFrEF and HFpEF represent distinct entities in terms of development and effective therapeutic management. Specifically cardiac resynchronization, administration of beta blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors are applied to good effect in HFrEF but are largely ineffective at reducing morbidity and mortality in HFpEF. Many of these therapies are effective in reducing the extent of cardiac dilation and increasing ejection fraction in HFrEF patients. It is unsurprising they fail to effect improvement in HFpEF patients, given their un-dilated phenotype and relative normal ejection fraction. Understanding and targeting mechanisms unique to HFpEF are thus essential to the development of therapeutics.

Randomized studies on HFpEF patients have shown that exercise improves left ventricular diastolic function, the heart's ability to relax, and is associated with improved aerobic exercise capacity. The benefit patients seem to derive from exercise does not seem to be a direct cardiac effect but rather is due to changes in peripheral vasculature and skeletal muscle, which show abnormalities in HFpEF patients.

Patients should be regularly assessed to determine progression of the condition, response to interventions, and need for alteration of therapy. Ability to perform daily tasks, hemodynamic status, kidney function, electrolyte balance, and serum natriuretic peptide levels are important parameters. Behavioral management is important in these patients and it is recommended that individuals with HFpEF avoid alcohol, smoking, and high sodium intake.

Anticoagulation can be used to reduce the risk of stroke from AF. Anticoagulation is recommended in most people other than those at low risk of stroke or those at high risk of bleeding. The risk of falls and consequent bleeding in frail elderly people with atrial fibrillation should not be considered a barrier to initiating or continuing therapeutic anticoagulation since the risk of fall-related brain bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage) is low and the benefit of stroke prevention outweighs the risk of bleeding. Oral anticoagulation is underused in atrial fibrillation while aspirin is overused in many who should be treated with a novel oral anticoagulant or warfarin.

The risk of stroke from non-valvular AF can be estimated using the CHADS-VASc score. A 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline said that for nonvalvular AF, anticoagulation is recommended if there is a score of 2 or more, not using anticoagulation or using aspirin may be considered if there is a score of 1, and not using anticoagulation is reasonable if there is a score of 0. In contrast, guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians, Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Circulation Society, Korean Heart Rhythm Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend the use of novel oral anticoagulants or warfarin with a CHADS2VASC score of 1 over aspirin and some directly recommend against aspirin. Experts generally advocate for most people with atrial fibrillation with CHADS2VASC scores of 1 or more receiving anticoagulation though aspirin is sometimes used for people with a CHADS2VASC score of 1 (moderate risk for stroke). There is little evidence to support the idea that the use of aspirin significantly reduces the risk of stroke in people with atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, aspirin's major bleeding risk (including intracranial hemorrhage) is similar to that of warfarin and NOACs despite its inferior efficacy.

Anticoagulation can be achieved through a number of means including warfarin, heparin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and apixaban. A number of issues should be considered, including the cost of NOACs, risk of stroke, risk of falls, compliance, and speed of desired onset of anticoagulation.

For those with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, the NOACs (rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban) are neither superior to nor worse than warfarin in preventing non-hemorrhagic stroke and systemic embolic events. They have a lower risk of intracranial bleeding compared to warfarin; however, dabigatran is associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

The prognosis for TIC after treatment of the underlying tachyarrhythmia is generally good. Studies show that left ventricular function often improves within 1 month of treatment of the tachyarrhythmia, and normalization of the left ventricular ejection fraction occurs in the majority of patients by 3 to 4 months. In some patients however, recovery of this function can take greater than 1 year or be incomplete. In addition, despite improvement in the left ventricular ejection fraction, studies have demonstrated that patients with prior TIC continue to demonstrate signs of negative cardiac remodeling including increased left ventricular end-systolic dimension, end-systolic volume, and end-diastolic volume. Additionally, recurrence of the tachyarrhythmia in patients with a history of TIC has been associated with a rapid decline in left ventricular ejection fraction and more severe cardiomyopathy that their prior presentation, which may be a result of the negative cardiac remodeling. There have also been cases of sudden death in patients with a history of TIC, which may be associated with worse baseline left ventricular dysfunction. Given these risks, routine monitoring with clinic visits, ECG, and echocardiography is recommended.

As previously stated, management of HFpEF is primarily dependent on the treatment of symptoms and exacerbating conditions. Currently treatment with ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers are employed but do not have a proven benefit in HFpEF patients. Additionally, use of Diuretics or other therapies that can alter loading conditions or blood pressure should be used with caution. It is not recommended that patients be treated with phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors or digoxin.

Antimineralocorticoid is currently recommended for patients with HFpEF who show elevated brain natriuretic peptide levels. Spironolactone is the first member of this drug class and the most frequently employed. Care should be taken to monitor serum potassium levels as well as kidney function, specifically glomerular filtration rate during treatment.

Beta blockers play a rather obscure role in HFpEF treatment but appear to play a beneficial role in patient management. There is currently a deficit of clinical evidence to support a particular benefit for HFpEF patients, with most evidence resulting from HFpEF patients' inclusion in broader heart failure trials. However, some evidence suggests that vasodilating beta blockers, such as nebivolol, can provide a benefit for patients with heart failure regardless of ejection fraction. Additionally, because of the chronotropic perturbation and diminished LV filling seen in HFpEF the bradycardic effect of beta blockers may enable improved filling, reduced myocardial oxygen demand and lowered blood pressure. However, this effect also can contribute to diminished response to exercise demands and can result in an excessive reduction in heart rate.

ACE inhibitors do not appear to improve morbidity or mortality associated with HFpEF alone. However, they are important in the management of hypertension, a significant player in the pathophysiology of HFpEF.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker treatment shows an improvement in diastolic dysfunction and hypertension that is comparable to other anti-hypertensive medication.

Initial therapy of acute decompensated heart failure usually includes some combination of a vasodilator such as nitroglycerin, a loop diuretic such as furosemide, and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV).

Even if symptoms of heart failure are not present, medications can be used to treat the symptoms that are being experienced. These medicines work to control these symptoms as well as treat other health problems that might be present. They can work to improve the quality of life, slow down the progression of heart failure and reduce the risk for other complications that can occur due to heart failure. It is very important to take proper medicines exactly as prescribed by the physician.

A number of different medications are required for people who are experiencing heart failure. Common types of medications that are prescribed for heart failure patients include ACE inhibitors, vasodilators, beta blockers, aspirin, calcium channel blockers, and cholesterol lowering medications such as statins. Depending on the type of damage a patient has suffered and the underlying cause of the heart failure, any of these drug classes or a combination of them can be prescribed. Patients with heart pumping problems will use a different medication combination than those who are experiencing problems with the heart's ability to fill properly during diastole. Potentially dangerous drug interactions can occur when different drugs mix together and work against each other.

The effectiveness and safety of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers acutely in ADHF have not been well studied, but are potentially harmful. A person should be stabilized before therapy with either of these medication classes is initiated. Individuals with poor kidney perfusion are especially at risk for kidney impairment inherent with these medications.

Beta-blockers are stopped or decreased in people with acutely decompensated heart failure and a low blood pressure. However, continuation of beta-blockers may be appropriate if the blood pressure is adequate.

Inotropes are indicated if low blood pressure ( SBP < 90 mmHg ) is present.

Opioids have traditionally been used in the treatment of the acute pulmonary edema that results from acute decompensated heart failure. A 2006 review, however, found little evidence to support this practice.

Treatment of TIC involves treating both the tachyarrhythmia and the heart failure with the goal of adequate rate control or restoration of the normal heart rhythm (aka. normal sinus rhythm) to reverse the cardiomyopathy. The treatment of the tachyarrhythmia depends on the specific arrhythmia, but possible treatment modalities include rate control, rhythm control with antiarrhythmic agents and cardioversion, radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation, or AV node ablation with permanent pacemaker implantation.

For TIC due to atrial fibrillation, rate control, rhythm control, and RF catheter ablation can be effective to control the tachyarrhythmia and improve left ventricular systolic function. For TIC due to atrial flutter, rate control is often difficult to achieve, and RF catheter ablation has a relatively high success rate with a low risk of complications. In patients with TIC due to other types of SVT, RF catheter ablation is recommended as a first-line treatment. In patients with TIC due to VT or PVCs, both antiarrhythmics and RF catheter ablation can be used. However, the options for antiarrhythmic agents are limited because certain agents can be proarrhythmic in the setting of myocardial dysfunction in TIC. Therefore, RF catheter ablation is often a safe and effective choice for treatment VT and PVCs causing TIC. In cases where other treatment strategies fail, AV node ablation with permanent pacemaker implantation can also be used to treat the tachyarrhythmia.

The treatment of heart failure commonly involves neurohormonal blockade with beta-blockers and angiotensin convertase inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) along with symptomatic management with diuretics. Beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors can inhibit and potentially reverse the negative cardiac remodeling, which refers to structural changes in the heart, that occurs in TIC. However, the need to continue these agents after treatment of the tacharrhythmia and resolution of left ventricular systolic dysfunction remains controversial.

The main goals of treatment are to prevent circulatory instability and stroke. Rate or rhythm control are used to achieve the former, whereas anticoagulation is used to decrease the risk of the latter. If cardiovascularly unstable due to uncontrolled tachycardia, immediate cardioversion is indicated. Regular, moderate-intensity exercise is beneficial for people with AF.

Generally, diastolic dysfunction is a chronic process. When this chronic condition is well tolerated by an individual, no specific treatment may be indicated. Rather, therapy should be directed at the root cause of the stiff left ventricle, with potential causes and aggravating factors like high blood pressure and diabetes treated appropriately. Conversely (as noted above), diastolic dysfunction tends to be better tolerated if the atrium is able to pump blood into the ventricles in a coordinated fashion. This does not occur in atrial fibrillation (AF), where there is no coordinated atrial activity and the left ventricle loses around 20% of its output. However, in chronic AF and in geriatric patients, AF is better tolerated and the cardiologist must choose between a stable AF at a lower rate and the risk of having an intermittent AF if he pretends to treat AF aggressively with all the thrombo-embolic risk it implies. In the same light, and also as noted above, if the atrial fibrillation persists and is resulting in a rapid heart rate, treatment must be given to slow down that rate. Usually digoxin maintains a stable rhythm. The use of a self-expanding device that attaches to the external surface of the left ventricle has been suggested, yet still awaits FDA approval. When the heart muscle squeezes, energy is loaded into the device, which absorbs the energy and releases it to the left ventricle in the diastolic phase. This helps retain muscle elasticity.

The role of specific treatments for diastolic dysfunction "per se" is as yet unclear. Diuretics can be useful, if these patients develop significant congestion, but patients must be monitored because they frequently develop hypotension.

Beta-blockers are the first-line therapy as they induce bradycardia and give time for ventricles to fill. There is some evidence that calcium channel blocker drugs may be of benefit in reducing ventricular stiffness in some cases (verapamil has the benefit lowering the heart rate). Likewise, treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, such as enalapril, ramipril, and many others, may be of benefit due to their effect on preventing ventricular remodeling but under control to avoid hypotension.

Athlete's heart is not dangerous for athletes (though if a nonathlete has symptoms of bradycardia, cardiomegaly, and cardiac hypertrophy, another illness may be present). Athlete's heart is not the cause of sudden cardiac death during or shortly after a workout, which mainly occurs due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a genetic disorder.

No treatment is required for people with athletic heart syndrome; it does not pose any physical threats to the athlete, and despite some theoretical concerns that the ventricular remodeling might conceivably predispose for serious arrhythmias, no evidence has been found of any increased risk of long-term events. Athletes should see a physician and receive a clearance to be sure their symptoms are due to athlete’s heart and not another heart disease, such as cardiomyopathy. If the athlete is uncomfortable with having athlete's heart or if a differential diagnosis is difficult, deconditioning from exercise for a period of three months allows the heart to return to its regular size. However, one long-term study of elite-trained athletes found that dilation of the left ventricle was only partially reversible after a long period of deconditioning. This deconditioning is often met with resistance to the accompanying lifestyle changes. The real risk attached to athlete's heart is if athletes or nonathletes simply assume they have the condition, instead of making sure they do not have a life-threatening heart illness.

Therapies that support reverse remodeling have been investigated, and this may suggests a new approach to the prognosis of cardiomyopathies (see ventricular remodeling).

Sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death in the industrialised world. It exacts a significant mortality with approximately 70,000 to 90,000 sudden cardiac deaths each year in the United Kingdom, and survival rates are only 2%. The majority of these deaths are due to ventricular fibrillation secondary to myocardial infarction, or "heart attack". During ventricular fibrillation, cardiac output drops to zero, and, unless remedied promptly, death usually ensues within minutes.

Artificial pacemakers may be used in patients with intraventricular conduction delay, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in those at risk of arrhythmia. These forms of treatment have been shown to prevent sudden cardiac death, improve symptoms, and reduce hospitalization in patients with systolic heart failure.

Treatment for alcoholic cardiomyopathy involves lifestyle changes, including complete abstinence from alcohol use, a low sodium diet, and fluid restriction, as well as medications. Medications may include ACE inhibitors, beta blockers, and diuretics which are commonly used in other forms of cardiomyopathy to reduce the strain on the heart. Persons with congestive heart failure may be considered for surgical insertion of an ICD or a pacemaker which can improve heart function. In cases where the heart failure is irreversible and worsening, heart transplant may be considered.

Treatment will possibly prevent the heart from further deterioration, and the cardiomyopathy is largely reversible if complete abstinence from alcohol is maintained.

Because several well-known and high-profile cases of athletes experiencing sudden unexpected death due to cardiac arrest, such as Reggie White and Marc-Vivien Foé, a growing movement is making an effort to have both professional and school-based athletes screened for cardiac and other related conditions, usually through a careful medical and health history, a good family history, a comprehensive physical examination including auscultation of heart and lung sounds and recording of vital signs such as heart rate and blood pressure, and increasingly, for better efforts at detection, such as an electrocardiogram.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) is a relatively straightforward procedure to administer and interpret, compared to more invasive or sophisticated tests; it can reveal or hint at many circulatory disorders and arrhythmias. Part of the cost of an ECG may be covered by some insurance companies, though routine use of ECGs or other similar procedures such as echocardiography (ECHO) are still not considered routine in these contexts. Widespread routine ECGs for all potential athletes during initial screening and then during the yearly physical assessment could well be too expensive to implement on a wide scale, especially in the face of the potentially very large demand. In some places, a shortage of funds, portable ECG machines, or qualified personnel to administer and interpret them (medical technicians, paramedics, nurses trained in cardiac monitoring, advanced practice nurses or nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians in internal or family medicine or in some area of cardiopulmonary medicine) exist.

If sudden cardiac death occurs, it is usually because of pathological hypertrophic enlargement of the heart that went undetected or was incorrectly attributed to the benign "athletic" cases. Among the many alternative causes are episodes of isolated arrhythmias which degenerated into lethal VF and asystole, and various unnoticed, possibly asymptomatic cardiac congenital defects of the vessels, chambers, or valves of the heart. Other causes include carditis, endocarditis, myocarditis, and pericarditis whose symptoms were slight or ignored, or were asymptomatic.

The normal treatments for episodes due to the pathological look-alikes are the same mainstays for any other episode of cardiac arrest: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation to restore normal sinus rhythm, and if initial defibrillation fails, administration of intravenous epinephrine or amiodarone. The goal is avoidance of infarction, heart failure, and/or lethal arrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, asystole, or pulseless electrical activity), so ultimately to restore normal sinus rhythm.

Defibrillation is the definitive treatment of ventricular fibrillation, whereby an electrical current is applied to the ventricular mass either directly or externally through pads or paddles, with the aim of depolarising enough of the myocardium for co-ordinated contractions to occur again. The use of this is often dictated around the world by Advanced Cardiac Life Support or Advanced Life Support algorithms, which is taught to medical practitioners including doctors, nurses and paramedics and also advocates the use of drugs, predominantly epinephrine, after every second unsuccessful attempt at defibrillation, as well as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in between defibrillation attempts. Though ALS/ACLS algorithms encourage the use of drugs, they state first and foremost that defibrillation should not be delayed for any other intervention and that adequate cardiopulmonary resuscitation be delivered with minimal interruption.

The precordial thump is a manoeuver promoted as a mechanical alternative to defibrillation. Some advanced life support algorithms advocate its use once and only in the case of witnessed and monitored V-fib arrests as the likelihood of it successfully cardioverting a patient are small and this diminishes quickly in the first minute of onset.

Patients who survive a 'V-fib arrest' and who make a good recovery from this are often considered for implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, which can quickly deliver this same life-saving defibrillation should another episode of ventricular fibrillation occur outside a hospital environment.

Therapy may be directed either at terminating an episode of the abnormal heart rhythm or at reducing the risk of another VT episode. The treatment for stable VT is tailored to the specific person, with regard to how well the individual tolerates episodes of ventricular tachycardia, how frequently episodes occur, their comorbidities, and their wishes. Individuals suffering from pulseless VT or unstable VT are hemodynamically compromised and require immediate electric cardioversion to shock them out of the VT rhythm.

For those who are stable with a monomorphic waveform the medications procainamide or sotalol may be used and are better than lidocaine. Evidence does not show that amiodarone is better than procainamide.

As a low magnesium level in the blood is a common cause of VT, magnesium sulfate can be given for torsades de pointes or if a low blood magnesium level is found/suspected.

Long-term anti-arrhythmic therapy may be indicated to prevent recurrence of VT. Beta-blockers and a number of class III anti-arrhythmics are commonly used, such as the beta-blockers carvedilol, metoprolol, and bisoprolol, and the Potassium-Channel-Blockers amiodarone, dronedarone,bretylium, sotalol, ibutilide, and dofetilide. Angiotensin-converting-eynsyme (ACE) inhibitors and aldostrone antatagonists are also sometimes used in this setting.

A complication that may occur in the acute setting soon after a myocardial infarction or in the weeks following is cardiogenic shock. Cardiogenic shock is defined as a hemodynamic state in which the heart cannot produce enough of a cardiac output to supply an adequate amount of oxygenated blood to the tissues of the body.

While the data on performing interventions on individuals with cardiogenic shock is sparse, trial data suggests a long-term mortality benefit in undergoing revascularization if the individual is less than 75 years old and if the onset of the acute myocardial infarction is less than 36 hours and the onset of cardiogenic shock is less than 18 hours. If the patient with cardiogenic shock is not going to be revascularized, aggressive hemodynamic support is warranted, with insertion of an intra-aortic balloon pump if not contraindicated. If diagnostic coronary angiography does not reveal a culprit blockage that is the cause of the cardiogenic shock, the prognosis is poor.

Cardiac resuscitation guidelines (ACLS/BCLS) advise that Cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be initiated promptly to maintain cardiac output until the PEA can be corrected. The approach in treatment of PEA is to treat the underlying cause, if known (e.g. relieving a tension pneumothorax). Where an underlying cause for PEA cannot be determined and/or reversed, the treatment of pulseless electrical activity is similar to that for asystole. There is no evidence that external cardiac compression can increase cardiac output in any of the many scenarios of PEA, such as hemorrhage, in which impairment of cardiac filling is the underlying mechanism producing loss of a detectable pulse.

An intravenous or intraosseous line should be started to provide medications through. The mainstay of drug therapy for PEA is epinephrine (adrenaline) 1 mg every 3–5 minutes. Although previously the use of atropine was recommended in the treatment of PEA/asystole, this recommendation was withdrawn in 2010 by the American Heart Association due to lack of evidence for therapeutic benefit. Epinephrine too has a limited evidence base, and it is recommended on the basis of its mechanism of action.

Sodium bicarbonate 1meq per kilogram may be considered in this rhythm as well, although there is little evidence to support this practice. Its routine use is not recommended for patients in this context, except in special situations (e.g. preexisting metabolic acidosis, hyperkalemia, tricyclic antidepressant overdose).

All of these drugs should be administered along with appropriate CPR techniques. Defibrillators cannot be used to correct this rhythm, as the problem lies in the response of the myocardial tissue to electrical impulses.

A myocardial infarction may compromise the function of the heart as a pump for the circulation, a state called heart failure. There are different types of heart failure; left- or right-sided (or bilateral) heart failure may occur depending on the affected part of the heart, and it is a low-output type of failure. If one of the heart valves is affected, this may cause dysfunction, such as mitral regurgitation in the case of left-sided coronary occlusion that disrupts the blood supply of the papillary muscles. The incidence of heart failure is particularly high in patients with diabetes and requires special management strategies.