The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD supported patients. Device‐related, and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of LVAD implanting centres. The probability of an LVAD supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local ambulance team, emergency department medical team and internal or surgical wards in a non‐LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this paper is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non‐LVAD specialized physician — ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, and internists — to comply with the medical needs of this fast‐growing population of LVAD supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department, and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually back to the general practitioner.

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD- supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient-device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD-supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non-cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end-of-life approaches are described.

High admission blood glucose (ABG) level has been associated with a poor short-term outcome among non-diabetic patients with heart failure (HF). We aimed to investigate the association between ABG levels and long-term (10 years) mortality in patients with or without pre-existing diabetes mellitus (DM) admitted with HF. We analyzed data on 1811 patients with DM and 2182 patients without pre-existing DM who were hospitalized with HF during a prospective national survey. The relationship between ABG and 10-year mortality was assessed using the Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for multiple variables. ABG was analyzed both as a categorical (200 mg/dL) and as a continuous variable. At 10 years of follow-up the cumulative probability of mortality was 85 and 78% among patients with DM and patients with no pre-existing DM (p < 0.001), respectively. Among patients with no pre-existing DM, glucose levels of 110–140, 140–200 and ≥200 mg/dL were associated with 9% (p = 0.140), 16% (p = 0.031) and 53% (p < 0.001) increased mortality risk compared to ABG < 110 mg/dL. Each 18-mg/dL (1-mmol/L) increase in glucose level was associated with a 5% increased risk of mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with no-pre-existing DM. In contrast, among patients with DM, only those with glucose levels >200 mg/dL had an increased mortality risk (>200 mg/dL versus 200 mg/dL is associated with increased mortality risk.

Background: Self-care is important in chronic diseases such as heart failure. The cultural background of health care providers might influence their view on self-care behaviour and education they provide. The aim of this study was to describe health care providers’ perceptions of the role of culture in self-care and how those perceptions shape their experiences and their practices. Methods: A qualitative study was performed in Israel, a country with a culturally diverse population. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 12 healthcare providers from different cultural backgrounds. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. Results: Healthcare providers experienced cultural background influenced their patients’ self-care behaviour. Perceived culture-specific barriers to self-care such as dietary traditions interfering with the recommended diet, willingness to undertake self-care and beliefs conflicting with medical treatment were identified. Healthcare providers described that they adapted patient education and care based on the cultural background of the patients. Shared cultural background, awareness and knowledge of differences were described as positively influencing self-care education, while cultural differences could complicate this process. Conclusions: Cultural-specific barriers for self-care were perceived by health care providers and they identified that their own cultural background shapes their experiences and their practices.