4.5 Article

Parental risk factors for congenital diaphragmatic hernia - a large German case-control study

Journal

BMC PEDIATRICS
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-021-02748-3

Keywords

Birth defect; CDH; Congenital diaphragmatic hernia; Environmental risk factor

Categories

Funding

  1. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evidence from a case-control study suggests an association between CDH and maternal periconceptional alcohol intake and maternal periconceptional use of hairspray. The study also highlights the multifactorial background of isolated CDH, identifying novel and confirming previously described parental risk factors.
Background Evidence for periconceptional or prenatal environmental risk factors for the development of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) is still scarce. Here, in a case-control study we investigated potential environmental risk factors in 199 CDH patients compared to 597 healthy control newborns. Methods The following data was collected: time of conception and birth, maternal BMI, parental risk factors such as smoking, alcohol or drug intake, use of hairspray, contact to animals and parental chronic diseases. CDH patients were born between 2001 and 2019, all healthy control newborns were born in 2011. Patients and control newborns were matched in the ratio of three to one. Results Presence of CDH was significantly associated with maternal periconceptional alcohol intake (odds ratio = 1.639, 95% confidence interval 1.101-2.440, p = 0.015) and maternal periconceptional use of hairspray (odds ratio = 2.072, 95% confidence interval 1.330-3.229, p = 0.001). Conclusion Our study suggests an association between CDH and periconceptional maternal alcohol intake and periconceptional maternal use of hairspray. Besides the identification of novel and confirmation of previously described parental risk factors, our study underlines the multifactorial background of isolated CDH.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available