Miranda R Jones1, Joaquin Barnoya2, Saverio Stranges3, Lia Losonczy4, Ana Navas-Acien1. 1. Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis MO. 3. Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK. 4. Highland Hospital of Alameda County, Oakland, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Legislations banning smoking in indoor public places and workplaces are being implemented worldwide to protect the population from secondhand smoke exposure. Several studies have reported reductions in hospitalizations for acute coronary events following the enactment of smoke-free laws. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies examining how legislations that ban smoking in indoor public places impact the risk of acute coronary events. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and relevant bibliographies including previous systematic reviews for studies that evaluated changes in acute coronary events, following implementation of smoke-free legislations. Studies were identified through December 2013. We pooled relative risk (RR) estimates for acute coronary events comparing post- vs. pre-legislation using inverse-variance weighted random-effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies providing estimates for 47 locations were included. The legislations were implemented between 1991 and 2010. Following the enactment of smoke-free legislations, there was a 12 % reduction in hospitalizations for acute coronary events (pooled RR: 0.88, 95 % CI: 0.85-0.90). Reductions were 14 % in locations that implemented comprehensive legislations compared to an 8 % reduction in locations that only had partial restrictions. In locations with reductions in smoking prevalence post-legislation above the mean (2.1 % reduction) there was a 14 % reduction in events compared to 10 % in locations below the mean. The RRs for acute coronary events associated with enacting smoke-free legislation were 0.87 vs. 0.89 in locations with smoking prevalence pre-legislation above and below the mean (23.1 %), and 0.87 vs. 0.89 in studies from the Americas vs. other regions. CONCLUSION: The implementation of smoke-free legislations was related to reductions in acute coronary event hospitalizations in most populations evaluated. Benefits are greater in locations with comprehensive legislations and with greater reduction in smoking prevalence post-legislation. These cardiovascular benefits reinforce the urgent need to enact and enforce smoke-free legislations that protect all citizens around the world from exposure to tobacco smoke in public places.
BACKGROUND: Legislations banning smoking in indoor public places and workplaces are being implemented worldwide to protect the population from secondhand smoke exposure. Several studies have reported reductions in hospitalizations for acute coronary events following the enactment of smoke-free laws. OBJECTIVE: We set out to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies examining how legislations that ban smoking in indoor public places impact the risk of acute coronary events. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and relevant bibliographies including previous systematic reviews for studies that evaluated changes in acute coronary events, following implementation of smoke-free legislations. Studies were identified through December 2013. We pooled relative risk (RR) estimates for acute coronary events comparing post- vs. pre-legislation using inverse-variance weighted random-effects models. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies providing estimates for 47 locations were included. The legislations were implemented between 1991 and 2010. Following the enactment of smoke-free legislations, there was a 12 % reduction in hospitalizations for acute coronary events (pooled RR: 0.88, 95 % CI: 0.85-0.90). Reductions were 14 % in locations that implemented comprehensive legislations compared to an 8 % reduction in locations that only had partial restrictions. In locations with reductions in smoking prevalence post-legislation above the mean (2.1 % reduction) there was a 14 % reduction in events compared to 10 % in locations below the mean. The RRs for acute coronary events associated with enacting smoke-free legislation were 0.87 vs. 0.89 in locations with smoking prevalence pre-legislation above and below the mean (23.1 %), and 0.87 vs. 0.89 in studies from the Americas vs. other regions. CONCLUSION: The implementation of smoke-free legislations was related to reductions in acute coronary event hospitalizations in most populations evaluated. Benefits are greater in locations with comprehensive legislations and with greater reduction in smoking prevalence post-legislation. These cardiovascular benefits reinforce the urgent need to enact and enforce smoke-free legislations that protect all citizens around the world from exposure to tobacco smoke in public places.
Authors: Silvano Gallus; Piergiorgio Zuccaro; Paolo Colombo; Giovanni Apolone; Roberta Pacifici; Silvio Garattini; Cristina Bosetti; Carlo La Vecchia Journal: Prev Med Date: 2007-03-31 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: S Vasselli; P Papini; D Gaelone; L Spizzichino; E De Campora; R Gnavi; C Saitto; N Binkin; G Laurendi Journal: Minerva Cardioangiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 1.347
Authors: Marcia Erazo; Veronica Iglesias; Andrea Droppelmann; Marisol Acuña; Armando Peruga; Patrick N Breysse; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Tob Control Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: John Moraros; Yelena Bird; Shande Chen; Robert Buckingham; Richard S Meltzer; Surasri Prapasiri; Luis H Solis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2010-12-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Yolanda Rando-Matos; Mariona Pons-Vigués; María José López; Rodrigo Córdoba; José Luis Ballve-Moreno; Elisa Puigdomènech-Puig; Vega Estíbaliz Benito-López; Olga Lucía Arias-Agudelo; Mercè López-Grau; Anna Guardia-Riera; José Manuel Trujillo; Carlos Martin-Cantera Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kate Frazer; Joanne E Callinan; Jack McHugh; Susan van Baarsel; Anna Clarke; Kirsten Doherty; Cecily Kelleher Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-02-04