Home▸Heart Failure Medical Management▸End-Stage Heart Failure — Palliative vs Aggressive Therapy Simulator

🫁 End-Stage Heart Failure — Palliative vs Aggressive Therapy Simulator

A decision-making model for terminal heart failure patients, contrasting escalation of aggressive therapy with a palliative approach focused on symptom control.

Heart Failure Medical Management2DModerate60 FPS
end-stage-hf-palliative-vs-aggressive-simulator ↗ Open standalone

End-Stage Heart Failure Assessment

Baseline staging sets the frame for every downstream decision.

  • IV: NYHA Class (symptoms at rest)
  • ~50%: 1-yr mortality (stage D estimate)
  • 3+: Hospitalizations (in past 12 months)
  • <25%: Ejection fraction (severely reduced)

Clinical staging basics

Short placeholder: staging combines symptoms, hemodynamics, and trajectory.

Aggressive Therapy Escalation Pathways

LVAD, transplant, and inotropes aim to extend survival.

  • ~80%: LVAD 1-yr survival (destination therapy)
  • 6-12 mo: Transplant wait (typical median)
  • high: Inotrope risk (arrhythmia burden)
  • frailty: Candidacy filter (main exclusion driver)

Escalation tradeoffs

Short placeholder: each option trades procedural risk for extended survival.

Palliative Symptom Management Approach

Comfort-directed care targets dyspnea, pain, and fatigue.

  • high: Symptom relief (opioids, diuretics)
  • <6 mo: Hospice eligible (prognosis estimate)
  • ~40%: Readmission drop (with home hospice)
  • lower: Caregiver burden (vs aggressive care)

Comfort care basics

Short placeholder: symptom control replaces disease-modifying escalation.

Eliciting Patient Goals and Priorities

Structured conversation aligns therapy with patient values.

  • 30-60m: Discussion length (recommended session)
  • update: Advance directive (reviewed each visit)
  • yes: Family involved (shared conversation)
  • yes: Decision aid used (structured tool)

Conversation framework

Short placeholder: values clarification precedes any pathway commitment.

Shared Decision and Care Pathway Outcome

Final pathway blends prognosis, function, and stated priority.

  • higher: Concordant choice (satisfaction reported)
  • option: Time-limited trial (reassess later)
  • yes: Reversible choice (can be revisited)
  • required: Documented plan (chart update)

Finalizing the plan

Short placeholder: the chosen pathway is documented and reassessed over time.

Short placeholder: decisions are revisited as status changes.
⚙ Under the hood

A decision-making model for terminal heart failure patients, contrasting escalation of aggressive therapy with a palliative approach focused on symptom control.

CanvasBiomedicine

2D · HTML5 Canvas 2D · 60 FPS target · runs fully client-side, no install

What did you find?

Add reproduction steps (optional)