BACKGROUND: Health risks differ by fine particle (aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 μm) component, although with substantial variability. Traditional methods to assess component-specific risks are limited, suggesting the need for alternative methods. OBJECTIVES: We examined whether the odds of daily hospital admissions differ by pollutant chemical properties. METHODS: We categorized pollutants by chemical properties and examined their impacts on the odds of daily hospital admissions among Medicare recipients > 64 years of age in counties in Atlanta, Georgia, for 1998-2006. We analyzed data in two stages. In the first stage we applied a case-crossover analysis to simultaneously estimate effects of 65 pollutants measured in the Aerosol Research and Inhalation Epidemiology Study on cause-specific hospital admissions, controlling for temperature and ozone. In the second stage, we regressed pollutant-specific slopes from the first stage on pollutant properties. We calculated uncertainty estimates using a bootstrap procedure. We repeated the two-stage analyses using coefficients from first-stage models that included single pollutants plus ozone and meteorological variables only. We based our primary analyses on exposures on day of admission. RESULTS: We found that 24-hr transition metals and alkanes were associated with increased odds [0.26%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.02-0.48; and 0.37%; 95% CI, 0.04-0.72, respectively] of hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Transition metals were significantly associated with increased hospital admissions for ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Increased respiratory-related hospital admissions were significantly associated with alkanes. Aromatics and microcrystalline oxides were significantly associated with decreased CVD- and respiratory-related hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: The two-stage approach showed transition metals to be consistently associated with increased odds of CVD-related hospital admissions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suh et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: