SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Environmental tobacco smoke;
  • low birth weight;
  • pregnancy;
  • preterm/premature birth;
  • second-hand smoke;
  • stillbirth

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

Please cite this paper as: Crane J, Keough M, Murphy P, Burrage L, Hutchens D. Effects of environmental tobacco smoke on perinatal outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2011;118:865–871.

Objective  To evaluate the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) on perinatal outcomes.

Design  Retrospective cohort study.

Setting  Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

Population  Nonsmoking women with singleton gestations who delivered 1 April 2001–31 March 2009, identified through the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Perinatal Database.

Methods  Women who self-reported exposure to ETS were compared with those who reported no exposure. Univariate analyses and multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses (adjusting for maternal age, parity, partnered status, work status, level of education, body mass index, alcohol use, illicit drug use and gestational age) were performed and odds ratios(OR; or adjusted differences) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Main outcome measures  Birthweight, birth length, head circumference and stillbirth. Secondary outcomes included gestational age at delivery, preterm birth <37 and <34 weeks of gestation, prelabour rupture of membranes, Apgar score, endotracheal intubation for resuscitation, neonatal intensive care unit admission, congenital anomalies, respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, neonatal bacterial sepsis, jaundice and neonatal metabolic abnormalities.

Results  A total of 11 852 women were included: 1202(11.1%) exposed to ETS and 10 650 (89.9%) not exposed. Exposure to ETS was an independent risk factor for lower mean birthweight (−53.7 g, 95% CI −98.4 to −8.9 g), smaller head circumference (−0.24 cm, 95% CI −0.39 to −0.08 cm), shorter birth length (−0.29 cm, 95% CI −0.51 to −0.07 cm), stillbirth (OR 3.35, 95% CI 1.16–9.72, = 0.026), and trends towards preterm birth <34 weeks (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.00–3.53, = 0.05) and neonatal sepsis (OR 2.96, 95% CI 0.99–8.86).

Conclusions  Exposure of nonsmoking pregnant women to ETS is associated with a number of adverse perinatal outcomes including lower birthweight, smaller head circumference and stillbirth, as well as shorter birth length. This information is important for women, their families and healthcare providers, and reinforces the continued need for increased public policy and education on prevention of exposure to ETS.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy is associated with a variety of obstetric complications including spontaneous abortion, placental abruption, growth restriction, preterm prelabour rupture of membranes, preterm birth, miscarriage and stillbirth, resulting in increased perinatal morbidity and mortality.1–4 Longer-term adverse effects include higher rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,3,5 asthma,4,6 adverse effects on the immune system4,6 and possibly childhood cancers.3 There appears to be a dose–response relationship with increased risks associated with increased number of cigarettes and duration of smoking through pregnancy.1,2

There is less information about exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS; second-hand smoke) and adverse pregnancy outcomes.7,8 Undiluted side-stream smoke contains many harmful chemicals and in greater concentration than cigarette smoke inhaled through a filter.9–11 Previous meta-analyses have found that environmental tobacco smoke reduces mean birthweight by 28–60 g,12–14 may increase the risk of birthweight <2500 g by up to 22%,12,13 but does not seem to affect gestational age or the rate of preterm birth.12–14 One meta-analysis suggested an increase in birth length, but a trend towards smaller head circumference with ETS exposure.12 There is limited information on other adverse perinatal outcomes with ETS exposure, with a previous meta-analysis not finding any studies evaluating stillbirth.12 The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of ETS, or second-hand smoke exposure, on perinatal outcomes.

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

We performed a retrospective cohort study of nonsmoking women with singleton gestations who delivered between 1 April 2001 and 31 May 2009, identifying women using the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Perinatal Program (NLPPP) Database. This computerised database collects information on pregnancy outcomes for several regions of Newfoundland and Labrador including Eastern region, Western region and Labrador. Data collected include demographic information, antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum events and perinatal outcomes for deliveries of at least 20 weeks of gestation. Quality assurance and data quality are ensured through the NLPPP Database’s routine edit checking process on all extracted data. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was recorded on the prenatal record during the first prenatal visit. Women who self-reported exposure to ETS were compared with those who reported no exposure to ETS. Women were excluded from the study if they did not self-report exposure or no exposure to ETS. Women were also excluded if they reported smoking during pregnancy or did not report this information.

Maternal characteristics including maternal age, parity, partnered status, work status, level of education, body mass index (BMI), weight gain during pregnancy (less than recommended, as recommended, or more than recommended),15 alcohol or illicit drug use in pregnancy, hypertension (pre-existing or gestational) and diabetes (pre-existing or gestational) were described and compared between women who self-reported ETS exposure and those who reported no exposure. Primary outcomes of this study were birthweight, head circumference, birth length and stillbirth. Secondary outcomes included birthweight <2500 g, prelabour rupture of membranes, gestational age at delivery (including preterm birth <37 weeks and <34 weeks of gestation), Apgar score, endotracheal intubation for resuscitation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, neonatal length of hospital stay, congenital anomalies, respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis, neonatal bacterial sepsis, jaundice and neonatal metabolic abnormalities (including hypoglycaemia, hypomagnesaemia and hypocalcaemia). Outcomes were based on the International Classification of Diseases version 10 coding, with data entered by trained hospital coders.

Statistical analyses were performed using spss for Windows version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and pepi 3.01, 2000 (Computer Programs for Epidemiologists, Stone Mountain, GA, USA). Descriptive statistics were used for nonsmoking women exposed and not exposed to ETS. Univariate analyses including chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to compare dichotomous outcomes between the two groups and Student’s t test was used to compare continuous outcomes. Data that were ordinal were compared with Mann–Whitney U test. Multiple logistic and linear regression models were used to evaluate outcomes, adjusting for maternal age, parity, partnered status, work status, level of education, BMI, alcohol use, illicit drug use, and gestational age (for outcomes other than gestational age at delivery). Adjusted odds ratios (OR) (or adjusted differences) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. For the primary outcomes, a value of P < 0.05 was considered significant. A trend was noted if the P value was between 0.05 and 0.075. For secondary outcomes, a P value of significance was based on Hochberg variation, with P < 0.017,16 with a trend noted if P value was between 0.017 and 0.05. The number of nonsmoking women exposed to ETS associated with one extra or one less case of the outcome of interest was calculated.

Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Human Investigation Committee of Memorial University and the Research Proposal Approval Committee of Eastern Health.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

Of 17 723 women with singleton gestations during the study period, 14 650 (82.7%) did not smoke, 2862 (16.1%) smoked during pregnancy, and smoking status was not known for 211 (1.2%). Of the 14 650 women who met the inclusion criteria (nonsmoking women with singleton gestations), 11 852 (80.9%) reported either exposure or no exposure to ETS. Of these women, 1202 (11.1%) were exposed to ETS and 10 650 (89.9%) self-reported no exposure. Demographic characteristics of exposed and not exposed women are summarised in Table 1. Nonsmoking women exposed to ETS were younger, had a higher BMI, were more likely to be nulliparous, less likely to have a partner, less likely to work, more likely to use alcohol or illicit drugs during pregnancy, and had a lower level of education than women not exposed to ETS.

Table 1.   Demographic data
 Exposure to ETSP value*
Yes (= 1202; 11.1%)No (n = 10 650; 89.9%)
  1. Data are n (%), mean ± SD or median [quartiles].

  2. *Statistical tests used were: aStudent’s t test; bchi-square test; cMann–Whitney U test; and dFisher exact test.

Maternal age (years)27.1 ± 5.930.2 ± 4.8<0.0001a
Nulliparous813/1202 (67.6%)5262/10 650 (49.4%)<0.0001b
Parity0 [0, 1]1 [1, 2]<0.0001c
Gravidity1 [1, 2]2 [1, 3]<0.0001c
BMI (kg/m2)27.5 ± 7.226.8 ± 6.30.019a
Weight gain
Less than recommended89/671 (13.3%)701/5935 (11.8%)0.37b
As recommended158/671 (23.5%)1524/5935 (25.7%) 
More than recommended424/671 (63.2%)3710/5935 (62.5%) 
Hypertension154/1202 (12.8%)1217/10 650 (11.4%)0.16b
Diabetes44/1202 (3.7%)374/10 650 (3.5%)0.79b
Partnered599/1098 (54.6%)7947/10 002 (79.5%)<0.0001b
Work status
Not working338/957 (35.3%)1591/7668 (20.7%)<0.0001b
Part time104/957 (10.9%)638/7668 (8.3%) 
Full time515/957 (53.8%)5439/7668 (70.9%) 
Level of education
Less than high school123/993 (12.4%)233/9074 (2.6%)<0.0001b
High school230/993 (23.2%)846/9074 (9.3%) 
Beyond high school640/993 (64.5%)7995/9074 (88.1%) 
Alcohol use in pregnancy33/1199 (2.8%)143/10 594 (1.3%)<0.0001b
Elicit drug use in pregnancy6/1199 (0.5%)8/10 634 (0.08%)<0.0001d

The results of univariate analyses for the outcomes of interest are summarised in Table 2. A number of adverse outcomes were seen more frequently in women exposed to ETS including smaller head circumference, lower birthweight, higher incidence of birthweight <2500 g, increased rates of stillbirth, preterm birth <37 and <34 weeks of gestation, Apgar score <7 at 1 minute, need for endotracheal intubation during resuscitation, NICU admission, bacterial sepsis, jaundice and longer neonatal length of stay, as well as shorter birth length.

Table 2.   Perinatal outcomes in nonsmoking women by exposure to ETS by univariate analyses
OutcomeExposure to ETSP value*
Yes (= 1202)No (n = 10 650)
  1. Data are n (%) or mean ± SD.

  2. *Statistical tests used were: aStudent’s t test; bchi-square test; and cFisher exact test.

Head circumference (cm)34.43 ± 1.9434.70 ± 1.86<0.0001a
Birth length (cm)49.77 ± 2.9350.02 ± 2.810.003a
Birthweight (g)3428 ± 6423508 ± 603<0.0001a
Birthweight <2500 g89/1202 (7.40%)493/10 650 (4.63%)<0.0001b
Stillbirth10/1202 (0.83%)39/10 650 (0.37%)0.028c
Prelabour rupture of membranes313/1201 (26.1%)2702/10 647 (25.4%)0.63b
Preterm birth <37 weeks122/1201 (10.16%)871/10 645 (8.18%)0.019b
Preterm birth <34 weeks39/1201 (3.25%)233/10 645 (2.19%)0.020b
Apgar <7 at 1 minute101/1195 (8.45%)717/10 611 (6.76%)0.029b
Apgar <7 at 5 minutes22/1196 (1.84%)149/10 610 (1.40%)0.23b
Endotracheal tube/use26/1202 (2.16%)151/10 650 (1.41%)0.044b
NICU admission158/1202 (13.14%)1070/10 650 (10.05%)0.001b
Length of stay (days)4.55 ± 9.663.91 ± 9.000.028a
Congenital anomalies157/1202 (13.06%)1224/10 650 (11.49%)0.11b
Respiratory distress syndrome30/1202 (2.50%)187/10 650 (1.76%)0.070b
Intraventicular haemorrhage3/1202 (0.25%)51/10 650 (0.48%)0.26b
Necrotising enterocolitis3/1202 (0.25%)12/10 650 (0.11%)0.19c
Bacterial sepsis13/1202 (1.08%)54/10 650 (0.51%)0.012b
Jaundice86/1202 (7.15%)566/10 650 (5.31%)0.008b
Metabolic abnormality38/1202 (3.16%)310/10 650 (2.91%)0.63b

Exposure to ETS was not reported in 19.1% of otherwise eligible women. We therefore compared the demographic characteristics and outcomes (by univariate analyses) between those women in whom exposure was known (either exposed or not exposed) and those in whom exposure was unknown (Tables 3 and 4). Those in whom exposure was unknown were younger, lighter weight, had a lower level of education and were less likely to have hypertension, have a partner or be working (Table 3). Regarding perinatal outcomes, the babies of women with unknown ETS exposure status were lighter birthweight, had smaller head circumferences and birth lengths, were more likely to be born preterm and were more likely to be stillborn (Table 4). They also had higher rates of NICU admission, endotracheal tube use, respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, jaundice and longer length of stay.

Table 3.   Comparison between those in whom exposure was reported (either exposed or not exposed) and those in whom exposure was unknown
 Exposure to ETSP value*
Unknown (n = 2798; 19.1%)Known (either Yes or No) (= 11 852; 80.9%)
  1. Data are n (%), mean ± SD or median [quartiles].

  2. *Statistical tests used were: aStudent’s t test; bchi-square test; and cFisher exact test.

Maternal age (years)29.4 ± 5.329.9 ± 5.0<0.0001a
Nulliparous1420/2798 (50.8%)6075/11 852 (51.3%)0.63b
BMI (kg/m2)26.5 ± 6.826.9 ± 6.40.04a
Weight gain
Less than recommended133/1179 (11.3%)790/6606 (12.0%)0.77b
As recommended307/1179 (26.0%)1682/6606 (25.4%) 
More than recommended739/1179 (62.7%)4134/6606 (62.6%) 
Hypertension267/2798 (9.5%)1371/11 852 (11.6%)0.002b
Diabetes109/2798 (3.9%)418/11 852 (3.5%)0.35b
Partnered1810/2467 (73.4%)8546/11 100 (77.0%)<0.0001b
Work status
Not working348/766 (45.4%)1929/8625 (22.4%)<0.0001b
Part time53/766 (6.9%)742/8625 (8.6%) 
Full time365/766 (47.7%)5954/8625 (69.0%) 
Level of education
Less than high school132/2328 (5.7%)356/10 067 (3.5%)<0.0001b
High school311/2328 (13.4%)1076/10 067 (10.7%) 
Beyond high school1885/2328 (81.0%)8635/10 067 (85.8%) 
Alcohol use in pregnancy31/2720 (1.1%)176/11 793 (1.5%)0.16b
Elicit drug use in pregnancy4/2687 (0.15%)14/11 833 (0.12%)0.76c
Table 4.   Perinatal outcomes between those in whom exposure was reported (either exposed or not exposed) and those in whom exposure was unknown
OutcomeExposure to ETSP value*
Unknown (= 2798; 19.1%)Known (either Yes or No) (n = 11 852; 80.9%)
  1. Data are n (%) or mean ± SD.

  2. *Statistical tests used were: aStudent’s t test; bchi-square test; and cFisher exact test.

Head circumference (cm)34.44 ± 2.1034.67 ± 1.870.002a
Birth length (cm)49.74 ± 3.1850.00 ± 2.82<0.0001a
Birth weight (g)3415 ± 7073500 ± 608<0.0001a
Birth weight <2500 g211/2798 (7.54%)582/11 852 (4.91%)<0.0001b
Stillbirth20/2798 (0.71%)49/11 852 (0.41%)0.036b
Prelabour rupture of membranes688/2796 (24.6%)3020/11 848 (25.5%)0.33b
Preterm birth <37 weeks349/2790 (12.5%)993/11 846 (8.38%)<0.0001b
Preterm birth <34 weeks147/2790 (5.27%)272/11 846 (2.30%)<0.0001b
Apgar <7 at 1 minute209/2781 (7.52%)818/11 806 (6.93%)0.28b
Apgar <7 at 5 minutes52/2781 (1.87%)171/11 806 (1.45%)0.10b
Endotracheal tube/use60/2797 (2.15%)177/11 843 (1.49%)0.014b
NICU admission407/2798 (14.5%)1228/11 852 (10.4%)<0.0001b
Length of stay (days)4.94 ± 11.143.97 ± 9.07<0.0001a
Congenital anomalies358/2798 (12.8%)1381/11 852 (11.7%)0.093b
Respiratory distress syndrome93/2798 (3.32%)217/11 852 (1.83%)<0.0001b
Intraventriuclar haemorrhage25/2798 (0.89%)54/11 852 (0.46%)0.004b
Necrotising enterocolitis7/2798(0.25%)15/11 852 (0.13%)0.17c
Bacterial sepsis24/2798 (0.86%)91/11 852 (0.77%)0.077b
Jaundice205/2798 (7.33%)652/11 852 (5.50%)<0.0001b
Metabolic abnormality99/2798 (3.54%)348/11 852 (2.94%)0.096b

Multivariate logistic and linear regressions showing outcomes independently associated with ETS exposure are summarised in Table 5. These models adjusted for maternal age, parity, partnered status, work status, BMI, alcohol or illicit drug use, gestational age (for outcomes other than preterm birth) and level of education (for outcomes other than stillbirth). Univariate analysis revealed that education level was not significantly associated with stillbirth in our population (P = 0.29), and so education level was not included in the logistic regression model for stillbirth. Exposure to ETS was independently associated with lighter birthweight, shorter birth length, smaller head circumference, stillbirth, and trends towards preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation and bacterial sepsis. Babies born to women exposed to ETS had a mean birthweight 53.7 g (95% CI 8.9–98.4 g) less than women reporting no exposure to ETS. The head circumference of babies of mothers exposed to ETS was 0.24 cm (95% CI 0.08–0.39 cm) smaller than those not exposed to ETS. The number of women exposed to ETS associated with one additional stillbirth was 117, with one additional preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation was 55, and with one additional incident of neonatal bacterial sepsis was 102.

Table 5.   Multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses showing outcomes independently associated with environmental tobacco smoke exposure
OutcomeAdjusted difference/Adjusted OR*95% CIP value
  1. *Adjusted odds ratio values (other values are adjusted differences).

  2. Adjusting for maternal age, nulliparity, partnered status, work status, BMI, alcohol or illicit drug use in pregnancy, level of education (for outcomes other than stillbirth) and gestational age (for outcomes other than preterm birth).

Birthweight (g)−53.7−98.4 to −8.90.019
Head circumference (cm)−0.24−0.39 to −0.080.003
Birth length (g)−0.29−0.51 to −0.070.010
Stillbirth3.35*1.16 to 9.720.026
Preterm birth <34 weeks1.87*1.00 to 3.530.05
Bacterial sepsis2.96*0.99 to 8.860.05

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

Our study confirms the findings of previous researchers, noting an association between ETS and reduced birthweight.12–14 Postulated mechanisms for lower birthweight include reduced oxygenation of the fetus secondary to carbon monoxide as well as nicotine-related vasoconstriction resulting in decreased uterine and placental blood flow.2 We also found that pregnancies exposed to ETS resulted in babies with smaller head circumferences and shorter birth lengths. A previous meta-analysis found a trend towards smaller head circumference, but interestingly a longer birth length, a finding that was felt to be probably due to chance.12

Unlike many earlier studies and meta-analyses,12–14 we did find an association between ETS and preterm birth <34 weeks. We are not able to further assess if these preterm births were the result of spontaneous onset of labour with intact membranes or of premature rupture of membranes or were indicated for maternal or fetal reasons. Active maternal smoking has been associated with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes and preterm birth, although the underlying mechanism is not well understood.1,2 Possible explanations for a link with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes include vasoconstriction disrupting the integrity of the amniotic membranes, possible adverse effects on nutritional status by interfering with protein metabolism, and impaired maternal immunity leading to increased risk of infection.2 We did not, however, find a difference in the overall rate of prelabour rupture of membranes between the two groups. Possible biological explanations for the association of direct maternal smoking and spontaneous onset of labour with intact membranes include placental vasoconstriction and increased levels of catecholamines, both of which may initiate labour.1,2 Direct maternal smoking has been linked to preterm birth so it is not surprising that we noted this association with ETS, despite many previous studies not finding this association.

Our study evaluated a number of perinatal outcomes not evaluated in many previous studies,12 including stillbirth. We found that ETS exposure was associated with stillbirth and bacterial sepsis. As direct maternal smoking has been linked with impaired maternal immunity1,2 it may also interfere with immunity in the newborn infant, and this may be the biological explanation for the association we found between ETS and neonatal bacterial sepsis. Few studies have evaluated the association of ETS and stillbirth, and those studies that did, did not find an association.10,17 Stillbirth has been associated with direct maternal smoking.2 The biological plausibility of this association is not fully understood, but possible causes include its association with growth restriction and placental complications including abruption, as well as a nicotine-induced change in central respiratory control mechanisms.2

To make these associations easy to understand for women, their families and healthcare providers we calculated the number of nonsmoking women exposed to ETS associated with one extra adverse outcome of interest, with the numbers ranging from 55 to 117. For example for every 55 women exposed to ETS one additional preterm birth <34 weeks was noted and for every 117 women exposed to ETS one additional stillbirth was noted.

It is important that the limitations of our study be addressed. Unfortunately, 19.1% of otherwise eligible women did not have ETS exposure recorded in the database, and so were not included in the study. Despite this, we had over 11 000 women in our study who reported either exposure or no exposure to ETS. We did, however, evaluate the demographic characteristics and outcomes of those in whom ETS exposure was unknown compared with those in whom it was known (either exposed or not exposed), noting differences between these two groups. Exposure of ETS was based on women’s self-report as recorded in the prenatal record so we could not verify the exposure. Previous research, however, has suggested that self-reports of second-hand smoke exposure are accurate in most studies18 and are appropriate when studying large populations.19 We were not able to further quantify the exposure, such as the number of hours a day exposed, the degree (such as an enclosed room not ventilated or outdoor environment) or type of exposure (household or work environment), and so are not able to evaluate a possible dose–response relationship. Pregnant women may be reluctant to admit to ETS exposure because of social stigma and so some of these women may be misclassified into the no exposure group. If this occurred, then the true association between ETS exposure and the outcomes of interest may actually be stronger than found in our study. We did not compare nonsmoking women with ETS exposure to women who smoked during pregnancy, as the objective of our current study was to evaluate the effects of ETS on nonsmoking women. In our population of women with singleton gestations delivering during the study period, there were 2862 smokers, of whom 1138 reported ETS exposure, 600 reported no ETS exposure and 1124 with unknown ETS exposure status. We felt that these numbers were too small to include in our study as comparison groups because we would not have adequate power to evaluate the outcomes of interest for these groups. Also we were not able to evaluate women who had smoked in the past but stopped before pregnancy. We only evaluated pregnancy outcomes at 20 weeks of gestation and beyond, and so cannot comment on the effects of ETS on spontaneous abortion rates. Although we controlled for a variety of potential confounders, it is possible that the associations noted with adverse outcomes are the result of other confounders. Importantly, there may be residual confounding by unmeasured risk factors such as socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status was not consistently recorded in the database so this information could not be used in this study. However, we were able to adjust for partnered status, work status, education level, and alcohol or illicit drug use, some of which may be linked to socioeconomic status. Finally, our population is over 99% Caucasian, and so our findings may not be generalisable to other ethnic groups.

The strengths of the study include the fact that ETS was recorded for the majority of eligible women in the database (81.1%). We were able to adjust for multiple potential confounders including maternal age, parity, partnered status, work status, level of education, BMI, alcohol or illicit drug use, and gestational age at delivery. We evaluated a variety of perinatal outcomes not previously studied, including stillbirth.

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

Exposure of nonsmoking pregnant women to ETS is associated with a number of adverse perinatal outcomes including lower birthweight, smaller head circumference, shorter birth length, stillbirth, and trends towards preterm birth <34 weeks of gestation and bacterial sepsis. This information is important for women, their families and healthcare providers, and reinforces the continued need for increased public policy and education on prevention of exposure to ETS.

Disclosure of interests

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

There are no relevant financial, personal, political, intellectual or religious conflicts of interest.

Contribution to authorship

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

JMGC, contributed to study design, data analysis, and writing and revision of the manuscript; MK, PM and LB contributed to study design, data analysis, and review of the manuscript and DH contributed to study design and review of the manuscript.

Details of ethics approval

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References

Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Human Investigation Committee of Memorial University and the Research Proposal Approval Committee of Eastern Health (#09.128 July 22, 2009).

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusion
  8. Disclosure of interests
  9. Contribution to authorship
  10. Details of ethics approval
  11. Funding
  12. References
  • 1
    Lindsay J, Royle C, Heaman M. Rate of Maternal Smoking During Pregnancy. Canadian Perinatal Health Report. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2008. pp. 3942.
  • 2
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Health consequences of tobacco use among women: reproductive outcomes. Women and Smoking. Washington DC: Office of the Surgeon General, 2001. pp. 272307.
  • 3
    Rogers J. Tobacco and pregnancy. Reprod Toxicol 2009;28:15260.
  • 4
    Werler MM. Teratogen update: smoking and reproductive outcomes. Teratology 1997;55:3828.
  • 5
    Linnet KM, Dalsgaard S, Obel C, Wisborg K, Henriksen TB, Rodriguez A, et al. Maternal lifestyle factors in pregnancy risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated behaviors: review of the current evidence. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:102840.
  • 6
    Ng SP, Zelikoff JT. Smoking during pregnancy: subsequent effects on offspring immune competence and disease vulnerability in later life. Reprod Toxicol 2007;23:42837.
  • 7
    Lindsay J, Royle C, Heaman M. Rate of Maternal Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke During Pregnancy. Canadian Perinatal Health Report. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2008. pp. 436.
  • 8
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
  • 9
    Lindbohm ML, Sallmen M, Taskinen H. Effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke on reproductive health. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002;28(Suppl. 2):8496.
  • 10
    Kharrazi M, DeLorenze GN, Kaufman FL, Eskenazi B, Bernert JT Jr, Graham S, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and pregnancy outcome. Epidemiology 2004;15:66070.
  • 11
    Windham GC, Eaton A, Hopkins B. Evidence for an association between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and birthweight: a meta-analysis and new data. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1999;13:3557.
  • 12
    Salmasi G, Grady R, Jones J, McDonald SD. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010;89:42341.
  • 13
    Leonardi-Bee J, Smyth A, Britton J, Coleman T. Environmental tobacco smoke and fetal health: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2008;9:F35161.
  • 14
    Windham GC, Hopkins B, Fenster L, Swan SH. Prenatal active or passive tobacco smoke exposure and the risk of preterm delivery or low birth weight. Epidemiology 2000;11:42733.
  • 15
    Institute of Medicine (Committee to Reexamine IOM Pregnancy Weight Guidelines Food and Nutrition Board and Board on Children, Youth, and Families). Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2009.
  • 16
    Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 1988;75:8002.
  • 17
    Ahlborg GJ, Borin L. Tobacco smoke exposure and pregnancy outcome among working women. A prospective study at prenatal centers in Orebro County, Sweden. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:33847.
  • 18
    Patrick DL, Cheadle A, Thompson DC, Diehr P, Koepsell T, Kinne S. The validity of self-reported smoking: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 1994;84:108693.
  • 19
    Jaakkola MS, Jaakkola JJ. Assessment of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Eur Respir J 1997;10:238497.