{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03986486486486487, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.052380952380952, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Selection criteria to palliative care implementation in advanced heart failure].

Early palliative care (PC) integration in advanced and end-stage heart failure has shown to improve quality of life and spiritual well-being and to reduce physical symptoms. Barriers to implementation exist: perception that PC is opposite to "life-prolonging" therapies or is involved only in cancer disease and in end of life, prognostic difficulties in advanced heart failure, comorbidities, discrepancy between patient-reported symptom burden and objective measures of disease severity. This is why it is necessary to focus on patient and caregivers "needs" instead of exclusively numerical-objective measures, in order to emphasize clinical but also psychological, assistential and spiritual elements contributing to quality of life. The most appropriate instruments are "patient-reported outcome measures" (PROMs) or, better, "patient-centered outcome measures" (PCOMs), such as the Needs Assessment Tool: Progressive Disease-Heart Failure (NAT: PD-HF), Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), NECPAL and Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT). Finally, it is important to recognize triggers to initiate a PC approach (important changes in disease trajectory, difficult or refractory symptoms, frequent defibrillator shocks or transplant/mechanical support prevision, functional capacity decline, severe comorbidities, communication needs also for advanced care planning).