Vaping Cardiovascular Health Risks: an Updated Umbrella Review

Abstract

Purpose of Review Modified risk products (MRP) such as electronic vaping cigarettes (EVC) and heat-not-burn cigarettes (HNBC) are alternatives to traditional combustion cigarettes (TCC) with an expanding consumer base. Yet, their cardiovascular health risks are still unclear. We aimed to summarize the evidence base on this topic by conducting an updated umbrella review. Recent Findings We identified 7 systematic reviews, totaling 183 studies and reports, ranging from in vitro and in animal studies to clinical studies in apparently healthy volunteers and patients at risk of cardiovascular disease. Overall, acute EVC use was associated with several toxic effects at molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, and system level. In addition, EVC impacted adversely on blood pressure (BP) management, caused tachycardia, and worsened arterial stiffness. Finally, EVC use was associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical events, including atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction, even if the causal link is still debated. Most reviews highlighted that the detrimental impact of EVC was of lesser magnitude of that of TCC. In addition, the differential impact of liquids and nicotine was not clearly disentangled. Finally, no review included studies on HNBC. Summary The present umbrella review suggests that EVC, and likely HNBC, despite clearly causing an increase in overall cardiovascular risk, may represent a temporary lesser evil than TCC in a risk-reduction or risk-modification strategy, aiming for eventual abstinence from all tobacco or nicotine products. Keywords Cardiovascular disease. Electronic cigarette. Electronic vaping cigarette. Heat-not-burn cigarette. Smoking Giving up smoking is the easiest thing in the world. I know because I've done it thousands of times.

New Zealand Youth19 survey: vaping has wider appeal than smoking in secondary school students, and most use nicotine‐containing e‐cigarettes

“…Recent reports have highlighted risks of acute lung injury and chronic risks to cardiovascular, respiratory and oral health as well as impacts of nicotine exposure on adolescent brain development. [5][6][7][8][9] Since e-cigarettes have only been widely available for about 10 years, and the latency of respiratory illnesses caused by exposure to toxicants is typically 17-40 years, 10,11 the impacts of long-term use are unknown. Qualitative evidence suggests that for young people the loss of autonomy and perceived 'weakness of character' associated with nicotine addiction can lead to negative self-perception, 12 therefore the psychological risks of vaping are also salient.…”

The product science of electrically heated tobacco products: a narrative review of the scientific literature

“…Several separate reviews and editorials have discussed the potential pulmonary and cardiovascular effects associated with heated tobacco product use (Conklin et al, 2019;Biondi Zoccai et al, 2020a;Fried and Gardner, 2020;Münzel et al, 2020;Peruzzi et al, 2020a;St Claire et al, 2020;Bravo-Gutiérrez et al, 2021). However, most have provided only minimal discussion of quantitative data relating specifically to heated tobacco product use in experimental volunteers (Biondi Zoccai et al, 2020a;Münzel et al,2020;Peruzzi et al, 2020a) whilst others have referenced no studies at all relating specifically to the cardiovascular and/or pulmonary effects of heated tobacco product use in humans (Conklin et al, 2019;St Claire et al, 2020;Bravo-Gutiérrez et al, 2021). Only a single review has provided a detailed discussion of the current literature on the potential cardiovascular effects of heated tobacco product use (Fried and Gardner, 2020).…”

Respiratory and Cardiovascular Health Effects of e-Cigarette Substitution: Protocol for Two Living Systematic Reviews

“…Buchanan et al [28] in their narrative review of preclinical and clinical studies even dismiss the available literature: "While the current but still limited literature suggests that e-cigarette use may lead to fewer negative cardiovascular effects than conventional cigarettes, our review supports that there is not sufficient data to conclusively make these resolutions." An umbrella review [29] (review of reviews) included 7 systematic reviews but did not include the NASEM review. The umbrella review included 3 reviews conducted in 2016 or earlier when substantially fewer studies had been published and 1 review that contributed only 2 case studies from cannabinoid ENDS use.…”

“…An umbrella review [ 29 ] (review of reviews) included 7 systematic reviews but did not include the NASEM review. The umbrella review included 3 reviews conducted in 2016 or earlier when substantially fewer studies had been published and 1 review that contributed only 2 case studies from cannabinoid ENDS use.…”