Acute effects of using an electronic nicotine-delivery device (electronic cigarette) on myocardial function: comparison with the effects of regular cigarettes

Cardiovascular Effects of Exposure to Cigarette Smoke and Electronic Cigarettes: Clinical Perspectives From the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Section Leadership Council and Early Career Councils of the American College of Cardiology

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as a result of inhaled tobacco products continues to be a global healthcare crisis, particularly in low- and middle-income nations lacking the infrastructure to develop and implement effective public health policies limiting tobacco use. Following initiation of public awareness campaigns 50 years ago in the United States, considerable success has been achieved in reducing the prevalence of cigarette smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. However, there has been a slowing of cessation rates in the United States during recent years, possibly caused by high residual addiction or fatigue from cessation messaging. Furthermore, tobacco products have continued to evolve faster than the scientific understanding of their biological effects. This review considers selected updates on the genetics and epigenetics of smoking behavior and associated cardiovascular risk, mechanisms of atherogenesis and thrombosis, clinical effects of smoking and benefits of cessation, and potential impact of electronic cigarettes on cardiovascular health.

Elektroninės cigaretės: naujas būdas mesti rūkyti ar nauja grėsmė?

ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES A NEW WAY TO QUIT SMOKING OR A NEW THREAT?

The use of e-cigarettes in adults and adolescents has increased since 2010. Most e-cigarette users are cigarette smokers. A majority of e-cigarette users perceive them to be a tool to quit or reduce smoking. E-cigarette devices consist of a cartridge containing a liquid, an atomizer (vaporization chamber with a heating element), and a battery. The user activates the atomizer, which heats the liquid and produces a vapour to inhale. Across all brands, the main components in e-cigarette liquids are propylene glycol or glycerol, in addition, nicotine and/or flavourings can be added. A variety of other compounds have also been identified. Long-term health consequences of e-cigarette use are unknown but are likely to be less than continuing to smoke conventional cigarettes. The toxicity of chronic exposure to these and other components of e-cigarettes is uncertain. The safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is unknown. Clinicians should encourage smokers seeking to quit smoking to use US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved smoking cessation aids as a first choice and make sure that newer approved strategies for smoking cessation pharmacotherapy are offered. If a smoker is not willing to use these evidence-based approaches and asks about using e-cigarettes, the clinician should not discourage e-cigarette use as long as the smoker is informed about the uncertainties of the device safety and efficacy. Public health concerns regarding e-cigarettes include their potential to increase youth initiation of tobacco products and to re-normalize tobacco use in places where cigarette smoking is not acceptable. The health effects of second-hand vapour exposure are unknown. Regulation for e-cigarettes varies worldwide and is changing. Keywords: electronic cigarettes, smoking, vapour.

Hormonal contraception among electronic cigarette users and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Women who use combined hormonal contraceptives and cigarettes have an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) events. We reviewed the literature to determine whether women who use hormonal contraceptives (HC) and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) also have an increased risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched for articles reporting myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, venous thromboembolism, peripheral arterial disease or changes to CV markers in women using e-cigarettes and HC. We also searched for indirect evidence, such as CV outcomes among e-cigarette users in the general population and among HC users exposed to nicotine, propylene glycol or glycerol.

RESULTS

No articles reported on outcomes among e-cigarette users using HC. Among the general population, 13 articles reported on heart rate or blood pressure after e-cigarette use. These markers generally remained normal, even when significant changes were observed. In three studies, changes were less pronounced after e-cigarette use than cigarette use. One MI was reported among 1012 people exposed to e-cigarettes in these studies. One article on nicotine and HC exposure found both exposures to be significantly associated with acute changes to heart rate, though mean heart rate remained normal. No articles on propylene glycol or glycerol and HC exposure were identified.

CONCLUSION

We identified no evidence on CV outcomes among e-cigarette users using HC. Limited data reporting mostly acute outcomes suggested that CV events are rare among e-cigarette users in the general population and that e-cigarettes may affect heart rate and blood pressure less than conventional cigarettes. There is a need for research assessing joint HC and e-cigarette exposure on clinical CV outcomes.

Electronic Cigarettes—A Narrative Review for Clinicians

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were introduced into the US market in 2007 and have quickly become a popular source of nicotine for many patients. They are designed to simulate smoking by heating a nicotine-containing solution producing an aerosol that the user inhales. The short- and long-term effects of e-cigarette use are still unclear, but their use is increasing. Some acute effects of e-cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and airway resistance are reported. Although there are some reports of improved cessation in a subset of users, there are also studies reporting decreased cessation in dual users of regular and e-cigarettes. Additionally, there is no current regulation of these devices, and this allows virtually anyone with a form of online payment to obtain them.

Cardiac development in zebrafish and human embryonic stem cells is inhibited by exposure to tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes

Background

Maternal smoking is a risk factor for low birth weight and other adverse developmental outcomes.

Objective

We sought to determine the impact of standard tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes on heart development in vitro and in vivo.

Methods

Zebrafish (Danio rerio) were used to assess developmental effects in vivo and cardiac differentiation of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) was used as a model for in vitro cardiac development.

Results

In zebrafish, exposure to both types of cigarettes results in broad, dose-dependent developmental defects coupled with severe heart malformation, pericardial edema and reduced heart function. Tobacco cigarettes are more toxic than e-cigarettes at comparable nicotine concentrations. During cardiac differentiation of hESCs, tobacco smoke exposure results in a delayed transition through mesoderm. Both types of cigarettes decrease expression of cardiac transcription factors in cardiac progenitor cells, suggesting a persistent delay in differentiation. In definitive human cardiomyocytes, both e-cigarette- and tobacco cigarette-treated samples showed reduced expression of sarcomeric genes such as MLC2v and MYL6. Furthermore, tobacco cigarette-treated samples had delayed onset of beating and showed low levels and aberrant localization of N-cadherin, reduced myofilament content with significantly reduced sarcomere length, and increased expression of the immature cardiac marker smooth muscle alpha-actin.

Conclusion

These data indicate a negative effect of both tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes on heart development in vitro and in vivo. Tobacco cigarettes are more toxic than E-cigarettes and exhibit a broader spectrum of cardiac developmental defects.

[Electronic cigarettes: A therapeutic tool, a social phenomenon or a business?]

Smoking is the first avoidable cause of morbidity and mortality. It is estimated that there were around 14 million smokers in France in 2012 and that smoking results in 70,000 deaths per year. All types of interventions reducing with efficacy the incidence and prevalence of smoking are to consider in prolonging life expectancy. Electronic cigarettes (e.cig.) are a social phenomenon but they also are a system delivering pharmacologically active substances; their use concerns today several millions of individuals in France. By this fact, it became important for clinical practitioners to acquire some knowledge about e. cig. Most of the e.cig. contains nicotine, thus, e.cig. are now called in the medical literature as electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS). It is highly plausible that ENDS, which are, as of today, consumer products and not health products, deliver nicotine with a good bioavailability and could, if largely used, help to reduce smoking prevalence. However, because of current lack of regulations, as of today, the risk/benefit ratio of ENDS as an aid to help smokers quit and their adverse effect profile cannot be established. It is of public health responsibility to promote evidence based knowledge about e.cig. to know with confidence their risk/benefit ratio.

Effects of using electronic cigarettes on nicotine delivery and cardiovascular function in comparison with regular cigarettes

The development of electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) has the potential to offer a less harmful alternative for tobacco users. This clinical study was designed to characterize e-cig users' exposure to nicotine, and to investigate the acute effects of e-cigs on the hemodynamic measurements (blood pressure and heart rate) in comparison with the effects of regular smoking. Five e-cigs and one Marlboro® cigarette were randomized for twenty-three participants under two exposure scenarios from Day 1 to Day 11: half-hour controlled administration and one hour ad lib use. The nicotine plasma concentrations after 1.5h of product use (C90) were significantly lower in the users of e-cigs than of Marlboro® cigarettes. The combination of glycerin and propylene glycol as the vehicle facilitated delivery of more nicotine than glycerin alone. The heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly elevated after use of Marlboro® cigarettes, but the elevation was less after use of most of the e-cigs. Use of e-cigs had no impact on the exhaled CO levels, whereas the Marlboro® cigarette significantly increased the exhaled CO more than 8 times above the baseline. In conclusion, e-cigs could be a less harmful alternative for tobacco users.

Electronic cigarettes: review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers and potential for harm and benefit

AIMS

We reviewed available research on the use, content and safety of electronic cigarettes (EC), and on their effects on users, to assess their potential for harm or benefit and to extract evidence that can guide future policy.

METHODS

Studies were identified by systematic database searches and screening references to February 2014.

RESULTS

EC aerosol can contain some of the toxicants present in tobacco smoke, but at levels which are much lower. Long-term health effects of EC use are unknown but compared with cigarettes, EC are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders. EC are increasingly popular among smokers, but to date there is no evidence of regular use by never-smokers or by non-smoking children. EC enable some users to reduce or quit smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Allowing EC to compete with cigarettes in the market-place might decrease smoking-related morbidity and mortality. Regulating EC as strictly as cigarettes, or even more strictly as some regulators propose, is not warranted on current evidence. Health professionals may consider advising smokers unable or unwilling to quit through other routes to switch to EC as a safer alternative to smoking and a possible pathway to complete cessation of nicotine use.

Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review

Electronic cigarettes are a recent development in tobacco harm reduction. They are marketed as less harmful alternatives to smoking. Awareness and use of these devices has grown exponentially in recent years, with millions of people currently using them. This systematic review appraises existing laboratory and clinical research on the potential risks from electronic cigarette use, compared with the well-established devastating effects of smoking tobacco cigarettes. Currently available evidence indicates that electronic cigarettes are by far a less harmful alternative to smoking and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from tobacco to electronic cigarettes. Research will help make electronic cigarettes more effective as smoking substitutes and will better define and further reduce residual risks from use to as low as possible, by establishing appropriate quality control and standards.

Electronic nicotine delivery systems ("e-cigarettes"): review of safety and smoking cessation efficacy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cigarette smoking is common among cancer patients and is associated with negative outcomes. Electronic nicotine delivery systems ("e-cigarettes") are rapidly growing in popularity and use, but there is limited information on their safety or effectiveness in helping individuals quit smoking.

DATA SOURCES

The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, and additional sources for published empirical data on safety and use of electronic cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking.

REVIEW METHODS

We conducted a structured search of the current literature up to and including November 2013.

RESULTS

E-cigarettes currently vary widely in their contents and are sometimes inconsistent with labeling. Compared to tobacco cigarettes, available evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are often substantially lower in toxic content, cytotoxicity, associated adverse effects, and secondhand toxicity exposure. Data on the use of e-cigarettes for quitting smoking are suggestive but ultimately inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians are advised to be aware that the use of e-cigarettes, especially among cigarette smokers, is growing rapidly. These devices are unregulated, of unknown safety, and of uncertain benefit in quitting smoking.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the absence of further data or regulation, oncologists are advised to discuss the known and unknown safety and efficacy information on e-cigarettes with interested patients and to encourage patients to first try FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation.

Electronic cigarettes: human health effects

OBJECTIVE

With the rapid increase in use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), such as electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), users and non-users are exposed to the aerosol and product constituents. This is a review of published data on the human health effects of exposure to e-cigarettes and their components.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted through September 2013 using multiple electronic databases.

RESULTS

Forty-four articles are included in this analysis. E-cigarette aerosols may contain propylene glycol, glycerol, flavourings, other chemicals and, usually, nicotine. Aerosolised propylene glycol and glycerol produce mouth and throat irritation and dry cough. No data on the effects of flavouring inhalation were identified. Data on short-term health effects are limited and there are no adequate data on long-term effects. Aerosol exposure may be associated with respiratory function impairment, and serum cotinine levels are similar to those in traditional cigarette smokers. The high nicotine concentrations of some products increase exposure risks for non-users, particularly children. The dangers of secondhand and thirdhand aerosol exposure have not been thoroughly evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific evidence regarding the human health effects of e-cigarettes is limited. While e-cigarette aerosol may contain fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke, studies evaluating whether e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes are inconclusive. Some evidence suggests that e-cigarette use may facilitate smoking cessation, but definitive data are lacking. No e-cigarette has been approved by FDA as a cessation aid. Environmental concerns and issues regarding non-user exposure exist. The health impact of e-cigarettes, for users and the public, cannot be determined with currently available data.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid - usually comprising propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir - into an aerosol for inhalation. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organisations have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can reduce the harms associated with smoking. In particular, healthcare providers have an urgent need to know what advice they should give to smokers enquiring about ECs.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy of ECs in helping people who smoke to achieve long-term abstinence; to examine the efficacy of ECs in helping people reduce cigarette consumption by at least 50% of baseline levels; and to assess the occurrence of adverse events associated with EC use.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Groups Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases for relevant records from 2004 to July 2014, together with reference checking and contact with study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which current smokers (motivated or unmotivated to quit) were randomized to EC or a control condition, and which measured abstinence rates or changes in cigarette consumption at six months or longer. As the field of EC research is new, we also included cohort follow-up studies with at least six months follow-up. We included randomized cross-over trials and cohort follow-up studies that included at least one week of EC use for assessment of adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author extracted data from the included studies and another checked them. Our main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, and we used the most rigorous definition available (continuous, biochemically validated, longest follow-up). For reduction we used a dichotomous approach (no change/reduction < 50% versus reduction by 50% or more of baseline cigarette consumption). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study, and where appropriate we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search identified almost 600 records, from which we include 29 representing 13 completed studies (two RCTs, 11 cohort). We identified nine ongoing trials. Two RCTs compared EC with placebo (non-nicotine) EC, with a combined sample size of 662 participants. One trial included minimal telephone support and one recruited smokers not intending to quit, and both used early EC models with low nicotine content. We judged the RCTs to be at low risk of bias, but under the GRADE system the overall quality of the evidence for our outcomes was rated 'low' or 'very low' because of imprecision due to the small number of trials. A 'low' grade means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. A 'very low' grade means we are very uncertain about the estimate. Participants using an EC were more likely to have abstained from smoking for at least six months compared with participants using placebo EC (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.96; placebo 4% versus EC 9%; 2 studies; GRADE: low). The one study that compared EC to nicotine patch found no significant difference in six-month abstinence rates, but the confidence intervals do not rule out a clinically important difference (RR 1.26, 95% CI: 0.68 to 2.34; GRADE: very low). A higher number of people were able to reduce cigarette consumption by at least half with ECs compared with placebo ECs (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.68, 2 studies; placebo: 27% versus EC: 36%; GRADE: low) and compared with patch (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.67, 1 study; patch: 44% versus EC: 61%; GRADE: very low). Unlike smoking cessation outcomes, reduction results were not biochemically verified.None of the RCTs or cohort studies reported any serious adverse events (SAEs) that were considered to be plausibly related to EC use. One RCT provided data on the proportion of participants experiencing any adverse events. Although the proportion of participants in the study arms experiencing adverse events was similar, the confidence intervals are wide (ECs vs placebo EC RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; ECs vs patch RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22). The other RCT reported no statistically significant difference in the frequency of AEs at three- or 12-month follow-up between the EC and placebo EC groups, and showed that in all groups the frequency of AEs (with the exception of throat irritation) decreased significantly over time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence from two trials that ECs help smokers to stop smoking long-term compared with placebo ECs. However, the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates mean that our confidence in the result is rated 'low' by GRADE standards. The lack of difference between the effect of ECs compared with nicotine patches found in one trial is uncertain for similar reasons. ECs appear to help smokers unable to stop smoking altogether to reduce their cigarette consumption when compared with placebo ECs and nicotine patches, but the above limitations also affect certainty in this finding. In addition, lack of biochemical assessment of the actual reduction in smoke intake further limits this evidence. No evidence emerged that short-term EC use is associated with health risk.

Chronic idiopathic neutrophilia in a smoker, relieved after smoking cessation with the use of electronic cigarette: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Smoking is a major risk factor for a variety of diseases. Electronic cigarettes are battery-operated devices that deliver nicotine to the lungs by evaporation of a liquid. Chronic idiopathic neutrophilia is a condition characterized by elevated white blood cell and neutrophil counts without any underlying disease; smoking has been implicated as a potential cause.

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Caucasian patient, born in 1977, presented in September 2005 with asymptomatic elevation of white blood cell and neutrophil count, and mildly-elevated C-reactive protein levels. He was a smoker since 1996 and was treated with 20 mg/day of simvastatin since 2003 due to hyperlipidemia. Clinical examination, and laboratory and imaging investigations ruled out any infectious, haematological, rheumatological, or endocrine conditions. He was followed-up regularly and was advised to stop smoking. He had 2 unsuccessful attempts to quit smoking; one was unassisted and the second was performed with the use of both varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy (patches). During the subsequent 6.5 years, his leukocyte and C-reactive protein levels were repeatedly elevated; the condition was consistent with chronic idiopathic neutrophilia. In February 2012, he started using electronic cigarettes and he managed to quit smoking within 10 days. After 6 months, laboratory examination showed normalized leukocyte count and C-reactive protein levels, confirmed immediately by a second laboratory and by repeated tests after 1 and 2 months.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation with the use of electronic cigarette led to reversal of chronic idiopathic neutrophilia. The daily use of electronic cigarette may help preserve the beneficial effects of smoking cessation.