Exploring the Link between Oil Exploitation and Cancer in the Indigenous Population of Ecuador: A Scoping Review.

With cancer accounting for 19% of deaths and projected to rise in the coming years, Ecuador's inequities in healthcare coverage remain a major concern for the rural, indigenous populations. While the cancer burden among this vulnerable population has been much publicized in the context of the controversial oil extraction in the Amazon, there is contradictory evidence on its occurrence and determinants. This review critically discusses the available literature on cancer among indigenous people in Ecuador and explores the link between oil exploitation and cancer occurrence among indigenous people using a scoping review approach. The results of this review show there is a clear but inconsistent association between oil exposure and cancer risk in indigenous populations of Ecuador. While the environmental magnitude of oil extraction in this region is a topic of debate, our findings point to the interplay with social determinants and other sources of carcinogenic compounds, which exacerbates the risks faced by indigenous communities. Based on these findings, this study puts forward three arguments to contextualize the occurrence of cancer related to oil exploitation in the Amazon, and puts forth key recommendations for public health initiatives embedded within the local community.

Remifentanil versus morphine-midazolam premedication on the quality of endotracheal intubation in neonates: a noninferiority randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare remifentanil and morphine-midazolam for use in nonurgent endotracheal intubation in neonates. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective noninferiority randomized trial, newborns of gestational age ≥28 weeks admitted in the neonatal intensive care unit requiring an elective or semielective endotracheal intubation were divided into 2 groups. One group (n = 36) received remifentanil (1 µg/kg), and the other group (n = 35) received morphine (100 µg/kg) and midazolam (50 µg/kg) at a predefined time before intubation (different in each group), to optimize the peak effect of each drug. Both groups also received atropine (20 µg/kg). The primary outcome was to compare the conditions of intubation, and the secondary outcome was to compare the duration of successful intubation, physiological variables, and pain scores between groups for first and second intubation attempts. Adverse events and neurologic test data were reported. RESULTS: Intubation with remifentanil was not inferior to that with morphine-midazolam. At the first attempted intubation, intubation conditions were poor in 25% of the remifentanil group and in 28.6% of the morphine-midazolam group (P = .471). For the second attempt, conditions were poor in 28.6% of the remifentanil group, compared with 10% of the morphine-midazolam group (P = .360). The median time to successful intubation was 33 seconds (IQR, 24-45 seconds) for the remifentanil group versus 36 seconds (IQR, 25-59 seconds) for the morphine-medazolam group (P = .359) at the first attempt and 45 seconds (IQR, 35-64 seconds) versus 56 seconds (IQR, 44-68 seconds), respectively, for the second attempt (P = .302). No significant between-group difference was reported for hypotension, bradycardia, or adverse events. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, remifentanil was at least as effective as the morphine-midazolam regimen for endotracheal intubation. Thus, premedication using this very-short-acting opioid can be considered in urgent intubations and is advantageous in rapid extubation.