The use of electric bed heaters and the risk of clinically recognized spontaneous abortion
The use of electric bed heaters and the risk of clinically recognized spontaneous abortion
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00001648-200007000-00008
复制
发表时间：
2000-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Hiatt, RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee, GM;Neutra, RR;Hiatt, RA
我们进行了一项前瞻性队列研究，以评估自然流产与妊娠早期使用电暖床的关系。与不使用者相比，使用电热床的妇女的自然流产率较低。使用的两种主要设备，电热毯（N = 524）和水床（N = 796）的调整后比值比和95%置信区间（CI）分别为0.8（95% CI = 0.5-1.1）和0.9（95% CI = 0.7-1.2）。未观察到风险随使用强度（设定-持续时间组合）增加而增加。夜间大部分时间使用低设置电热毯的患者（N = 171）的自然流产风险低于不使用者（调整后的比值比= 0.5; 95%CI = 0.3-1.0）。20名妇女谁使用电热毯在高设置1小时或更少的调整优势比为3.0（95% CI = 1.1-8.3），但我们发现没有自然流产的少数妇女（N = 13）谁使用高设置2小时或更长时间。我们发现，磁场时间加权平均值和变化率度量的暴露等级并不单调地对应于自然流产风险的模式，并且电热毯对夜间时间加权平均磁场的贡献比想象的要小。
We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate the relation of spontaneous abortion and electric bed heater use during the first trimester of pregnancy. Compared with nonusers, rates of spontaneous abortion were lower for women who used electric bed heaters. The adjusted odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the two major devices used, electric blankets (N = 524) and waterbeds (N = 796), were, respectively, 0.8 (95% CI = 0.5-1.1) and 0.9 (95% CI = 0.7-1.2). An increase of risk with increasing intensity (setting-duration combination) of use was not observed. Users of electric blankets at low settings for most of the night (N = 171) had lower risks of spontaneous abortion than non-users (adjusted odds ratio = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.3-1.0). Twenty women who used electric blankets at a high setting for 1 hour or less had an adjusted odds ratio of 3.0 (95% CI = 1.1-8.3), but we found no spontaneous abortions among the few women (N = 13) who used a high setting for 2 or more hours. We found that exposure rankings of the magnetic field time-weighted average and a rate of change metric did not correspond monotonically to the pattern of spontaneous abortion risks and that electric blankets contribute less to overnight time-weighted average magnetic fields than has been thought.