Intrapartum Electronic Cigarette Use and Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Population-Based Study.

3区 综合性期刊
Michelle Azar, M Elena Oatey, Michelle H Moniz, Beth A Bailey
{"title":"Intrapartum Electronic Cigarette Use and Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Population-Based Study.","authors":"Michelle Azar, M Elena Oatey, Michelle H Moniz, Beth A Bailey","doi":"10.3390/ijerph21111449","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The harms of combustible cigarette (CC) use in pregnancy for fetal development are well studied. Less understood are the potential impacts of newer non-combustible cigarette alternatives, including electronic cigarettes (ECs). Our goal was to examine whether EC use during pregnancy predicts increased risk of adverse birth outcomes. This retrospective cohort study used data from the Obstetrics Initiative (OBI), a statewide collaborative of 70 maternity hospitals. OBI's clinical registry of data on nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex fetal presentation pregnancies were from medical records. Three groups of pregnancy cigarette users (Controls (n = 26,394), CC (n = 2216), and EC (n = 493)) were compared on birth outcomes, controlling for background differences. Controls were defined as nonsmokers of ECs or CCs. Compared to the controls, the EC group had significantly lower birth weight, while the CC group had reduced birthweight and greater rates of arterial cord pH < 7.1. Compared to EC users, CC users had higher rates of neonates requiring antibiotics and NICU admission. Growing evidence suggests ECs are not safer alternatives to CCs and use during pregnancy should be discouraged. Additional research is needed, as non-significant trends for increased risk of several adverse neonatal outcomes following EC use were found, potentially significant in larger studies with average risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes and when frequency and timing of EC exposure are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":49056,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health","volume":"21 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11593741/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21111449","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The harms of combustible cigarette (CC) use in pregnancy for fetal development are well studied. Less understood are the potential impacts of newer non-combustible cigarette alternatives, including electronic cigarettes (ECs). Our goal was to examine whether EC use during pregnancy predicts increased risk of adverse birth outcomes. This retrospective cohort study used data from the Obstetrics Initiative (OBI), a statewide collaborative of 70 maternity hospitals. OBI's clinical registry of data on nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex fetal presentation pregnancies were from medical records. Three groups of pregnancy cigarette users (Controls (n = 26,394), CC (n = 2216), and EC (n = 493)) were compared on birth outcomes, controlling for background differences. Controls were defined as nonsmokers of ECs or CCs. Compared to the controls, the EC group had significantly lower birth weight, while the CC group had reduced birthweight and greater rates of arterial cord pH < 7.1. Compared to EC users, CC users had higher rates of neonates requiring antibiotics and NICU admission. Growing evidence suggests ECs are not safer alternatives to CCs and use during pregnancy should be discouraged. Additional research is needed, as non-significant trends for increased risk of several adverse neonatal outcomes following EC use were found, potentially significant in larger studies with average risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes and when frequency and timing of EC exposure are considered.

产前使用电子烟与分娩结果:一项基于人口的研究提供的证据。
孕期吸食可燃卷烟(CC)对胎儿发育的危害已被充分研究。人们对包括电子香烟(EC)在内的新型非燃烧香烟替代品的潜在影响了解较少。我们的目标是研究孕期使用电子烟是否会增加不良出生结果的风险。这项回顾性队列研究使用了产科倡议(OBI)的数据,这是一项由 70 家产科医院组成的全州合作项目。OBI 的临床登记数据来自医疗记录,包括无痛妊娠、足月妊娠、单胎妊娠和顶点胎儿先露妊娠。对照组(n = 26,394 人)、CC 组(n = 2216 人)和 EC 组(n = 493 人)三组孕期吸烟者的出生结果进行了比较,并控制了背景差异。对照组被定义为不吸烟的安产者或消委者。与对照组相比,EC组的出生体重明显较低,而CC组的出生体重较低,动脉脐带pH值<7.1的比例较高。与使用EC的新生儿相比,使用CC的新生儿需要抗生素和进入新生儿重症监护室的比例更高。越来越多的证据表明,EC并非比CC更安全的替代品,因此不鼓励在孕期使用EC。需要进行更多的研究,因为研究发现,使用胎儿用药后,新生儿出现几种不良后果的风险呈非显著性增加趋势,在妊娠不良后果平均风险较高的大型研究中,以及在考虑使用胎儿用药的频率和时间后,这种趋势可能会变得显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14422
期刊介绍: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) (ISSN 1660-4601) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes, and short communications in the interdisciplinary area of environmental health sciences and public health. It links several scientific disciplines including biology, biochemistry, biotechnology, cellular and molecular biology, chemistry, computer science, ecology, engineering, epidemiology, genetics, immunology, microbiology, oncology, pathology, pharmacology, and toxicology, in an integrated fashion, to address critical issues related to environmental quality and public health. Therefore, IJERPH focuses on the publication of scientific and technical information on the impacts of natural phenomena and anthropogenic factors on the quality of our environment, the interrelationships between environmental health and the quality of life, as well as the socio-cultural, political, economic, and legal considerations related to environmental stewardship and public health. The 2018 IJERPH Outstanding Reviewer Award has been launched! This award acknowledge those who have generously dedicated their time to review manuscripts submitted to IJERPH. See full details at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/awards.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信