Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology consensus on fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Several controversies remain on conservative management of cervical cancer. Our aim was to develop a consensus recommendation on important and novel topics of fertility-sparing treatment of cervical cancer. METHODS: The consensus was sponsored by the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (BSSO) from March 2020 to September 2020 and included a multidisciplinary team of 55 specialists. A total of 21 questions were addressed and they were assigned to specialists' groups that reviewed the literature and drafted preliminary recommendations. Further, the coordinators evaluated the recommendations that were classified by the level of evidence, and finally, they were voted by all participants. RESULTS: The questions included controversial topics on tumor assessment, surgical treatment, and surveillance in conservative management of cervical cancer. The two topics with lower agreement rates were the role of minimally invasive approach in radical trachelectomy and parametrial preservation. Additionally, only three recommendations had <90% of agreement (fertility preservation in Stage Ib2, anti-stenosis device, and uterine transposition). CONCLUSIONS: As very few clinical trials have been developed in surgery for cervical cancer, most recommendations were supported by low levels of evidence. We addressed important and novel topics in conservative management of cervical cancer and our study may contribute to literature.

Implementation of sepsis bundles in public hospitals in Brazil: a prospective study with heterogeneous results.

BACKGROUND: Public hospitals in emerging countries pose a challenge to quality improvement initiatives in sepsis. Our objective was to evaluate the results of a quality improvement initiative in sepsis in a network of public institutions and to assess potential differences between institutions that did or did not achieve a reduction in mortality. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of patients with sepsis or septic shock. We collected baseline data on compliance with the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 6-h bundles and mortality. Afterward, we initiated a multifaceted quality improvement initiative for patients with sepsis or septic shock in all hospital sectors. The primary outcome was hospital mortality over time. The secondary outcomes were the time to sepsis diagnosis and compliance with the entire 6-h bundles throughout the intervention. We defined successful institutions as those where the mortality rates decreased significantly over time, using a logistic regression model. We analyzed differences over time in the secondary outcomes by comparing the successful institutions with the nonsuccessful ones. We assessed the predictors of in-hospital mortality using logistic regression models. All tests were two-sided, and a p value less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: We included 3435 patients from the emergency departments (50.7%), wards (34.1%), and intensive care units (15.2%) of 9 institutions. Throughout the intervention, there was an overall reduction in the risk of death, in the proportion of septic shock, and the time to sepsis diagnosis, as well as an improvement in compliance with the 6-h bundle. The time to sepsis diagnosis, but not the compliance with bundles, was associated with a reduction in the risk of death. However, there was a significant reduction in mortality in only two institutions. The reduction in the time to sepsis diagnosis was greater in the successful institutions. By contrast, the nonsuccessful sites had a greater increase in compliance with the 6-h bundle. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement initiatives reduced sepsis mortality in public Brazilian institutions, although not in all of them. Early recognition seems to be a more relevant factor than compliance with the 6-h bundle.