-
Journal of Translational Medicine Oct 2015A great deal of attention has been focused on adverse effects of tobacco smoking on conception, pregnancy, fetal, and child health. The aim of this paper is to discuss... (Review)
Review
A great deal of attention has been focused on adverse effects of tobacco smoking on conception, pregnancy, fetal, and child health. The aim of this paper is to discuss the current evidence regarding short and long-term health effects on child health of parental smoking during pregnancy and lactation and the potential underlying mechanisms. Studies were searched on MEDLINE(®) and Cochrane database inserting, individually and using the Boolean ANDs and ORs, 'pregnancy', 'human lactation', 'fetal growth', 'metabolic outcomes', 'obesity', 'cardiovascular outcomes', 'blood pressure', 'brain development', 'respiratory outcomes', 'maternal or paternal or parental tobacco smoking', 'nicotine'. Publications coming from the reference list of studies were also considered from MEDLINE. All sources were retrieved between 2015-01-03 and 2015-31-05. There is overall consistency in literature about negative effects of fetal and postnatal exposure to parental tobacco smoking on several outcomes: preterm birth, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, neurodevelopmental and behavioral problems, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, impaired lung function, asthma and wheezing. While maternal smoking during pregnancy plays a major role on adverse postnatal outcomes, it may also cumulate negatively with smoking during lactation and with second-hand smoking exposure. Although this review was not strictly designed as a systematic review and the PRISMA Statement was not fully applied it may benefit the reader with a promptly and friendly readable update of the matter. This review strengthens the need to plan population health policies aimed to implement educational programs to hopefully minimize tobacco smoke exposure during pregnancy and lactation.
Topics: Adolescent; Asthma; Brain; Cardiovascular Diseases; Child; Child Behavior Disorders; Child, Preschool; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Fathers; Female; Fetal Development; Fetal Growth Retardation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lactation; Male; Maternal Exposure; Mothers; Obesity; Paternal Exposure; Pregnancy; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Respiration Disorders; Smoking; Tobacco Smoke Pollution
PubMed: 26472248
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-015-0690-y -
American Journal of Public Health Feb 2021To determine the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation. We searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and EMBASE and computed the association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To determine the association between e-cigarette use and smoking cessation. We searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, and EMBASE and computed the association of e-cigarette use with quitting cigarettes using random effects meta-analyses. We identified 64 papers (55 observational studies and 9 randomized clinical trials [RCTs]). In observational studies of all adult smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.947; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.772, 1.160) and smokers motivated to quit smoking (OR = 0.851; 95% CI = 0.684, 1.057), e-cigarette consumer product use was not associated with quitting. Daily e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (OR = 1.529; 95% CI = 1.158, 2.019) and less-than-daily use was associated with less quitting (OR = 0.514; 95% CI = 0.402, 0.665). The RCTs that compared quitting among smokers who were provided e-cigarettes to smokers with conventional therapy found e-cigarette use was associated with more quitting (relative risk = 1.555; 95% CI = 1.173, 2.061). As consumer products, in observational studies, e-cigarettes were not associated with increased smoking cessation in the adult population. In RCTs, provision of free e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention was associated with increased smoking cessation. E-cigarettes should not be approved as consumer products but may warrant consideration as a prescription therapy.
Topics: Adult; Cigarette Smoking; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking Cessation; Vaping
PubMed: 33351653
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305999 -
The American Journal of Cardiology Dec 2021Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common clinically significant arrhythmia, and it increases stroke risk. A preventive approach to AF is needed because virtually all...
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common clinically significant arrhythmia, and it increases stroke risk. A preventive approach to AF is needed because virtually all treatments such as cardioversion, antiarrhythmic drugs, ablation, and anticoagulation are associated with high cost and carry significant risk. A systematic review was performed to identify effective lifestyle-based strategies for reducing primary and secondary AF. A PubMed search was performed using articles up to March 1, 2021. Search terms included atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, exercise, diet, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertension, stress, tobacco smoking, alcohol, Mediterranean diet, sodium, and omega-3 fatty acids. Additional articles were identified from the bibliographies of retrieved articles. The control of hypertension, ideally with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, is effective for preventing primary AF and recurrence. Obstructive sleep apnea is a common cause of AF, and treating it effectively reduces AF episodes. Alcohol increases the risk of AF in a dose-dependent manner, and abstinence reduces risk of recurrence. Sedentary behavior and chronic high-intensity endurance exercise are both risk factors for AF; however, moderate physical activity is associated with lower risk of AF. Recently, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists have been associated with reduced risk of AF. Among overweight/obese patients, weight loss of ≥10% is associated with reduced AF risk. Lifestyle changes and risk factor modification are highly effective for preventing AF.
Topics: Alcohol Drinking; Atrial Fibrillation; Bariatric Surgery; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diet Therapy; Diet, Mediterranean; Dietary Fats, Unsaturated; Endurance Training; Exercise; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Humans; Metabolic Syndrome; Obesity; Overweight; Risk Reduction Behavior; Sedentary Behavior; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Weight Loss
PubMed: 34583808
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.08.042 -
Critical Reviews in Toxicology Feb 2020Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is becoming more prevalent and is particularly popular among adolescents and conventional smokers. While the oral health sequelae...
Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is becoming more prevalent and is particularly popular among adolescents and conventional smokers. While the oral health sequelae of conventional smoking are well-established, the impact of e-cigarettes on oral health is still unknown. This study aims to systematically review the available research evidence on the oral health impact of e-cigarette use. This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and used the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool to evaluate the evidence. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) were systematically searched for studies including case reports. Two independent reviewers extracted data and synthesized the findings. Ninety-nine articles were included in this systematic review. Analyses of the articles yielded seven categories based on symptom similarity and/or focus: mouth effects, throat effects, periodontal effects, dental effects, cytotoxic/genotoxic/oncologic effects, oral microbiome effects, and traumatic/accidental injury. The majority of mouth and throat symptoms experienced by e-cigarette users were relatively minor and temporary, with some evidence that conventional smokers who switched to e-cigarettes experienced mitigation of these symptoms. E-cigarette exposure increased the risk for deteriorating periodontal, dental and gingival health as well as changes to the oral microbiome. Extensive dental damage as a result of e-cigarette explosions were described in case reports. Components of e-cigarette vapor have known cytotoxic, genotoxic, and carcinogenic properties. Although switching to e-cigarettes may mitigate oral symptomatology for conventional smokers, findings from this review suggest that a wide range of oral health sequelae may be associated with e-cigarette use. Well-designed studies to investigate oral health outcomes of e-cigarette use are needed.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Oral Health; Smokers; Smoking; Vaping
PubMed: 32043402
DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2020.1713726 -
BMJ Open Oct 2018To investigate the sex-specific association between smoking and lung cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the sex-specific association between smoking and lung cancer.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed and EMBASE from 1 January 1999 to 15 April 2016 for cohort studies. Cohort studies before 1 January 1999 were retrieved from a previous meta-analysis. Individual participant data from three sources were also available to supplement analyses of published literature.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Cohort studies reporting the sex-specific relative risk (RR) of lung cancer associated with smoking.
RESULTS
Data from 29 studies representing 99 cohort studies, 7 million individuals and >50 000 incident lung cancer cases were included. The sex-specific RRs and their ratio comparing women with men were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with inverse-variance weighting. The pooled multiple-adjusted lung cancer RR was 6.99 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 5.09 to 9.59) in women and 7.33 (95% CI 4.90 to 10.96) in men. The pooled ratio of the RRs was 0.92 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.16; I=89%; p<0.001), with no evidence of publication bias or differences across major pre-defined participant and study subtypes. The women-to-men ratio of RRs was 0.99 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.52), 1.11 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.64) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.30), for light, moderate and heavy smoking, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Smoking yields similar risks of lung cancer in women compared with men. However, these data may underestimate the true risks of lung cancer among women, as the smoking epidemic has not yet reached full maturity in women. Continued efforts to measure the sex-specific association of smoking and lung cancer are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 30287668
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021611 -
Indian Journal of Public Health 2021Smoking is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Health education by health promotion is such a gauge to control tobacco epidemic at both national and...
BACKGROUND
Smoking is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Health education by health promotion is such a gauge to control tobacco epidemic at both national and multinational levels.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study were to systematically review the literature to identify models for health behavior change and evaluate evidence for their effectiveness in smoking cessation.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature identified four peer-reviewed studies describing two smoking cessation behavioral interventional models (transtheoretical model [TTM] and health belief model [HBM]) between 2008 and 2018. Electronic databases MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar and Trip database were carried out. There were two randomized controlled trials and two nonrandomized controlled interventional studies. There was a high degree of homogeneity of design, definition of smoking and smoking abstinence, and implementation, followed by comparison of studies. All included studies have evaluated outcome by stage of changes (component of TTM model) and therefore show the reduction of smoking rate. All studies did not have blinding of study participants, leading to a higher risk of bias in the outcome.
RESULTS
There was a statistically significant difference between TTM-based interventional group and control group in smoking cessation rate. While comparing HBM- and TTM-based behavioral counseling, there was no statistically significant difference in smoking cessation rate.
CONCLUSION
Both HBM- and TTM-based trainings were found to have positive effects on both smoking cessation and progression between the stages.
Topics: Counseling; Humans; India; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use
PubMed: 34135176
DOI: 10.4103/ijph.IJPH_1351_20 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Primary Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Smoking Prevention; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 34693994
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011556.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021There is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders. We assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool. For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases. We assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review. Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively. For all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I = 69%' very low-certainty evidence); mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate. For the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I = 87%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Taken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health. These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.
Topics: Affect; Anxiety; Confidence Intervals; Controlled Before-After Studies; Depression; Humans; Incidence; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Social Interaction; Stress, Psychological; Tobacco Use Cessation
PubMed: 33687070
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013522.pub2 -
European Journal of Preventive... Jul 2019The electronic cigarette is marketed as a safe alternative to tobacco smoking, but electronic cigarette cardiovascular effects remain largely unknown. We systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
The electronic cigarette is marketed as a safe alternative to tobacco smoking, but electronic cigarette cardiovascular effects remain largely unknown. We systematically reviewed and meta-analysed published literature to investigate the cardiovascular effects and associated risk from electronic cigarette use.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We searched PubMed from January 2000 to November 2017 for published studies assessing the cardiovascular effects of the electronic cigarette. Evidence suggests that the electronic cigarette negatively affects endothelial function, arterial stiffness and the long-term risk for coronary events, but these findings are from single study reports and have not been confirmed in additional studies. Conflicting evidence exists on the effects of the electronic cigarette on heart rate and blood pressure, which is mainly based on non-randomized clinical studies of moderate quality. The meta-analysis of 14 studies ( + 441 participants) suggested that despite the negative acute effects of the electronic cigarette on heart rate (pooled mean difference (MD) + 2.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64 to 2.89, < 0.001), diastolic (pooled MD + 2.01 mmHg, 95% CI: 0.62 to 3.39, + 0.004) and systolic blood pressure (pooled MD + 2.02 mmHg, 95% CI: 0.07 to 3.97, + 0.042), benefits may be observed in terms of blood pressure regulation when switching from tobacco smoking to chronic electronic cigarette use (systolic blood pressure pooled MD + -7.00, 95% CI: -9.63 to -4.37, < 0.001; diastolic blood pressure pooled MD + -3.65, 95% CI: -5.71 to -1.59, + 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The existing evidence on the cardiovascular effects of the electronic cigarette is concerning, with several unexplored issues. Unless supported by stronger evidence, the electronic cigarette should not be labelled as a cardiovascular safe product. Future studies should delineate whether electronic cigarette use is less hazardous to cardiovascular health than conventional cigarette smoking.
Topics: Animals; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cardiovascular System; Cigarette Smoking; Consumer Product Safety; E-Cigarette Vapor; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Health Status; Heart Rate; Humans; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Vaping
PubMed: 30823865
DOI: 10.1177/2047487319832975 -
Circulation Feb 2018Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality in women, yet many people perceive breast cancer to be the number one threat to women's health. CVD...
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality in women, yet many people perceive breast cancer to be the number one threat to women's health. CVD and breast cancer have several overlapping risk factors, such as obesity and smoking. Additionally, current breast cancer treatments can have a negative impact on cardiovascular health (eg, left ventricular dysfunction, accelerated CVD), and for women with pre-existing CVD, this might influence cancer treatment decisions by both the patient and the provider. Improvements in early detection and treatment of breast cancer have led to an increasing number of breast cancer survivors who are at risk of long-term cardiac complications from cancer treatments. For older women, CVD poses a greater mortality threat than breast cancer itself. This is the first scientific statement from the American Heart Association on CVD and breast cancer. This document will provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence of these diseases, shared risk factors, the cardiotoxic effects of therapy, and the prevention and treatment of CVD in breast cancer patients.
Topics: Age Factors; Breast Neoplasms; Cancer Survivors; Cardiovascular Diseases; Decision Making; Female; Humans; Obesity; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 29437116
DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000556