Version 1
: Received: 3 September 2024 / Approved: 4 September 2024 / Online: 4 September 2024 (13:37:26 CEST)
How to cite:
Azar, M.; Oatey, M. E.; Moniz, M.; Bailey, B. A. Intrapartum Electronic Cigarette Use and Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Population-Based Study. Preprints2024, 2024090362. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.0362.v1
Azar, M.; Oatey, M. E.; Moniz, M.; Bailey, B. A. Intrapartum Electronic Cigarette Use and Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Population-Based Study. Preprints 2024, 2024090362. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.0362.v1
Azar, M.; Oatey, M. E.; Moniz, M.; Bailey, B. A. Intrapartum Electronic Cigarette Use and Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Population-Based Study. Preprints2024, 2024090362. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.0362.v1
APA Style
Azar, M., Oatey, M. E., Moniz, M., & Bailey, B. A. (2024). Intrapartum Electronic Cigarette Use and Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Population-Based Study. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.0362.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Azar, M., Michelle Moniz and Beth A Bailey. 2024 "Intrapartum Electronic Cigarette Use and Birth Outcomes: Evidence from a Population-Based Study" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.0362.v1
Abstract
Harms of combustible cigarette (CC) use in pregnancy for fetal development are well-studied. Less understood is potential impacts of newer non-combustible cigarette alternatives, including electronic cigarettes (EC). 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, vertex fetal presentation pregnancies were from medical records. Three groups of pregnancy cigarette users (Controls (n=26,394), CC (n=2,216), EC (n=493) were compared on birth outcomes, controlling for background differences. Compared to controls, the EC group had significantly lower birth weight, while CC had reduced birthweight and greater rates of arterial cord pH < 7.1. Compared to EC, CC users had higher rates of neonates requiring antibiotics and NICU admission. Growing evidence suggests EC are not safer alternatives to CC, 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.
Medicine and Pharmacology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
