Acute cardiovascular effects of electronic cigarettes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

European heart journal open Pub Date : 2024-12-04 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1093/ehjopen/oeae098
Mahdis Cheraghi, Mehrnaz Amiri, Fatemeh Omidi, Amir Hashem Shahidi Bonjar, Hooman Bakhshi, Atefeh Vaezi, Mohammad Javad Nasiri, Mehdi Mirsaeidi
{"title":"Acute cardiovascular effects of electronic cigarettes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mahdis Cheraghi, Mehrnaz Amiri, Fatemeh Omidi, Amir Hashem Shahidi Bonjar, Hooman Bakhshi, Atefeh Vaezi, Mohammad Javad Nasiri, Mehdi Mirsaeidi","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oeae098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Electronic cigarette (EC) is widely advertised as a safe alternative to traditional cigarette (TC). We aimed to investigate the cardiovascular effect of EC with/without nicotine compared with TC. We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of different smoking modalities on cardiovascular function up to 1 October 2024. Analysis used the weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) via Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3.0. The study evaluated key cardiovascular parameters, including pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation index at 75 beats/min (AIx75), flow-mediated dilation (FMD), heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. We analysed 9 trials involving 370 participants. Acute exposure to EC with nicotine (ECN) compared with nicotine-free EC (EC0) increased PWV (WMD = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.14-0.38, <i>P</i> < 0.001), AIx75 (WMD = 4.29; 95% CI: 2.07-6.51, <i>P</i> < 0.001), and HR (WMD = 5.06; 95% CI: 2.13-7.98, <i>P</i> = 0.001), significantly. In contrast, comparison between ECN and TC revealed no significant differences in FMD (WMD = 0.80; 95% CI: -0.09-1.70, <i>P</i> = 0.08). Our meta-analysis suggests that ECN acutely increases arterial stiffness more than EC0 does. Additionally, we found that the acute effect of ECN on endothelial dysfunction is not different from TC. Therefore, our study suggests that vaping cannot be considered as a safe substitute for TC. Further investigation is needed to explore the long-term cardiovascular effects of vaping and its modalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":93995,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal open","volume":"4 6","pages":"oeae098"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11660918/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeae098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Electronic cigarette (EC) is widely advertised as a safe alternative to traditional cigarette (TC). We aimed to investigate the cardiovascular effect of EC with/without nicotine compared with TC. We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of different smoking modalities on cardiovascular function up to 1 October 2024. Analysis used the weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) via Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3.0. The study evaluated key cardiovascular parameters, including pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation index at 75 beats/min (AIx75), flow-mediated dilation (FMD), heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. We analysed 9 trials involving 370 participants. Acute exposure to EC with nicotine (ECN) compared with nicotine-free EC (EC0) increased PWV (WMD = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.14-0.38, P < 0.001), AIx75 (WMD = 4.29; 95% CI: 2.07-6.51, P < 0.001), and HR (WMD = 5.06; 95% CI: 2.13-7.98, P = 0.001), significantly. In contrast, comparison between ECN and TC revealed no significant differences in FMD (WMD = 0.80; 95% CI: -0.09-1.70, P = 0.08). Our meta-analysis suggests that ECN acutely increases arterial stiffness more than EC0 does. Additionally, we found that the acute effect of ECN on endothelial dysfunction is not different from TC. Therefore, our study suggests that vaping cannot be considered as a safe substitute for TC. Further investigation is needed to explore the long-term cardiovascular effects of vaping and its modalities.

电子烟对急性心血管的影响:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
电子烟(EC)被广泛宣传为传统香烟(TC)的安全替代品。我们的目的是比较加/不加尼古丁的EC与TC对心血管的影响。我们系统地检索了PubMed/MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane CENTRAL的随机对照试验,比较了截至2024年10月1日不同吸烟方式对心血管功能的影响。分析采用加权平均差(WMD), 95%置信区间(CI),采用3.0版综合meta分析软件。该研究评估了关键的心血管参数,包括脉搏波速度(PWV)、75次/分增强指数(AIx75)、血流介导的舒张(FMD)、心率(HR)、收缩压和舒张压。我们分析了涉及370名参与者的9项试验。与不含尼古丁的EC (EC0)相比,急性暴露于含尼古丁EC (ECN)增加了PWV (WMD = 0.26;95% CI: 0.14-0.38, P < 0.001), AIx75 (WMD = 4.29;95% CI: 2.07-6.51, P < 0.001)和HR (WMD = 5.06;95% CI: 2.13-7.98, P = 0.001),差异有统计学意义。相比之下,ECN与TC比较FMD无显著差异(WMD = 0.80;95% ci: -0.09-1.70, p = 0.08)。我们的荟萃分析表明,ECN比EC0更能显著增加动脉僵硬度。此外,我们发现ECN对内皮功能障碍的急性作用与TC没有什么不同。因此,我们的研究表明,电子烟不能被认为是电子烟的安全替代品。需要进一步研究电子烟对心血管的长期影响及其方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信