Mary D Willis1,2, Elaine L Hill3, Molly L Kile1, Susan Carozza1, Perry Hystad1. 1. School of Biological and Population Health Sciences, College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oil and gas extraction produces air pollutants that are associated with increased risks of hypertension. To date, no study has examined residential proximity to oil and gas extraction and hypertensive conditions during pregnancy. This study quantifies associations between residential proximity to oil and gas development on gestational hypertension and eclampsia. METHODS: We utilized a population-based retrospective birth cohort in Texas (1996-2009), where mothers reside <10 km from an active or future drilling site (n = 2 845 144.) Using full-address data, we linked each maternal residence at delivery to assign exposure and evaluate this exposure with respect to gestational hypertension and eclampsia. In a difference-in-differences framework, we model the interaction between maternal health before (unexposed) or after (exposed) the start of drilling activity (exposed) and residential proximity near (0-1, >1-2 or >2-3 km) or far (≥3-10 km) from an active or future drilling site. RESULTS: Among pregnant women residing 0-1 km from an active oil or gas extraction site, we estimate 5% increased odds of gestational hypertension [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 1.10] and 26% increased odds of eclampsia (95% CI: 1.05, 1.51) in adjusted models. This association dissipates in the 1- to 3-km buffer zones. In restricted models, we find elevated odds ratios among maternal ages ≤35 years at delivery, maternal non-Hispanic White race, ≥30 lbs gained during pregnancy, nulliparous mothers and maternal educational attainment beyond high school. CONCLUSIONS: Living within 1 km of an oil or gas extraction site during pregnancy is associated with increased odds of hypertensive conditions during pregnancy.
BACKGROUND: Oil and gas extraction produces air pollutants that are associated with increased risks of hypertension. To date, no study has examined residential proximity to oil and gas extraction and hypertensive conditions during pregnancy. This study quantifies associations between residential proximity to oil and gas development on gestational hypertension and eclampsia. METHODS: We utilized a population-based retrospective birth cohort in Texas (1996-2009), where mothers reside <10 km from an active or future drilling site (n = 2 845 144.) Using full-address data, we linked each maternal residence at delivery to assign exposure and evaluate this exposure with respect to gestational hypertension and eclampsia. In a difference-in-differences framework, we model the interaction between maternal health before (unexposed) or after (exposed) the start of drilling activity (exposed) and residential proximity near (0-1, >1-2 or >2-3 km) or far (≥3-10 km) from an active or future drilling site. RESULTS: Among pregnant women residing 0-1 km from an active oil or gas extraction site, we estimate 5% increased odds of gestational hypertension [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 1.10] and 26% increased odds of eclampsia (95% CI: 1.05, 1.51) in adjusted models. This association dissipates in the 1- to 3-km buffer zones. In restricted models, we find elevated odds ratios among maternal ages ≤35 years at delivery, maternal non-Hispanic White race, ≥30 lbs gained during pregnancy, nulliparous mothers and maternal educational attainment beyond high school. CONCLUSIONS: Living within 1 km of an oil or gas extraction site during pregnancy is associated with increased odds of hypertensive conditions during pregnancy.
Authors: Lisa M McKenzie; James Crooks; Jennifer L Peel; Benjamin D Blair; Stephen Brindley; William B Allshouse; Stephanie Malin; John L Adgate Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: David J X Gonzalez; Allison R Sherris; Wei Yang; David K Stevenson; Amy M Padula; Michael Baiocchi; Marshall Burke; Mark R Cullen; Gary M Shaw Journal: Environ Epidemiol Date: 2020-06-05
Authors: David A Savitz; Beth Elston; Jennifer F Bobb; Jane E Clougherty; Francesca Dominici; Kazuhiko Ito; Sarah Johnson; Tara McAlexander; Zev Ross; Jessie L C Shmool; Thomas D Matte; Gregory A Wellenius Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Sara G Rasmussen; Elizabeth L Ogburn; Meredith McCormack; Joan A Casey; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Dione G Mercer; Brian S Schwartz Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Mary D Willis; Elaine L Hill; Andrew Boslett; Molly L Kile; Susan E Carozza; Perry Hystad Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 9.031