Electronic and Tobacco Cigarettes Alter Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Oxidative Biomarkers.

[Figure: see text].

Differential effects of tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes on endothelial function in healthy young people.

Tobacco cigarette (TC) smoking has never been lower in the United States, but electronic cigarette (EC) vaping has reached epidemic proportions among our youth. Endothelial dysfunction, as measured by flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD) is a predictor of future atherosclerosis and adverse cardiovascular events and is impaired in young TC smokers, but whether FMD is also reduced in young EC vapers is uncertain. The aim of this study in otherwise healthy young people was to compare the effects of acute and chronic tobacco cigarette (TC) smoking and electronic cigarette (EC) vaping on FMD. FMD was compared in 47 nonsmokers (NS), 49 chronic EC vapers, and 40 chronic TC smokers at baseline and then after EC vapers (n = 31) and nonsmokers (n = 47) acutely used an EC with nicotine (ECN), EC without nicotine (EC0), and nicotine inhaler (NI) at ~4-wk intervals and after TC smokers (n = 33) acutely smoked a TC, compared with sham control. Mean age (NS, 26.3 ± 5.2 vs. EC, 27.4 ± 5.45 vs. TC, 27.1 ± 5.51 yr, P = 0.53) was similar among the groups, but there were more female nonsmokers. Baseline FMD was not different among the groups (NS, 7.7 ± 4.5 vs. EC:6.6 ± 3.6 vs. TC, 7.9 ± 3.7%∆, P = 0.35), even when compared by group and sex. Acute TC smoking versus control impaired FMD (FMD pre-/postsmoking, -2.52 ± 0.92 vs. 0.65 ± 0.93%∆, P = 0.02). Although the increase in plasma nicotine was similar after EC vapers used the ECN versus TC smokers smoked the TC (5.75 ± 0.74 vs. 5.88 ± 0.69 ng/mL, P = 0.47), acute EC vaping did not impair FMD. In otherwise healthy young people who regularly smoke TCs or ECs, impaired FMD compared with that in nonsmokers was not present at baseline. However, FMD was significantly impaired after smoking one TC, but not after vaping an equivalent "dose" (estimated by change in plasma nicotine) of an EC, consistent with the notion that non-nicotine constituents in TC smoke mediate the impairment. Although it is reassuring that acute EC vaping did not acutely impair FMD, it would be dangerous and premature to conclude that ECs do not lead to atherosclerosis.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In our study of otherwise healthy young people, baseline flow-mediated dilation (FMD), a predictor of atherosclerosis and increased cardiovascular risk, was not different among tobacco cigarette (TC) smokers or electronic cigarette (EC) vapers who had refrained from smoking, compared with nonsmokers. However, acutely smoking one TC impaired FMD in smokers, whereas vaping a similar EC "dose" (as estimated by change in plasma nicotine levels) did not. Finally, although it is reassuring that acute EC vaping did not acutely impair FMD, it would be premature and dangerous to conclude that ECs do not lead to atherosclerosis or increase cardiovascular risk.

Acute and chronic sympathomimetic effects of e-cigarette and tobacco cigarette smoking: role of nicotine and non-nicotine constituents.

Electronic cigarettes (ECs) and tobacco cigarettes (TCs) both release nicotine, a sympathomimetic drug. We hypothesized that baseline heart rate variability (HRV) and hemodynamics would be similar in chronic EC and TC smokers and that after acute EC use, changes in HRV and hemodynamics would be attributable to nicotine, not non-nicotine, constituents in EC aerosol. In 100 smokers, including 58 chronic EC users and 42 TC smokers, baseline HRV and hemodynamics [blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR)] were compared. To isolate the acute effects of nicotine vs. non-nicotine constituents in EC aerosol, we compared changes in HRV, BP, and HR in EC users after using an EC with nicotine (ECN), EC without nicotine (EC0), nicotine inhaler (NI), or sham vaping (control). Outcomes were also compared with TC smokers after smoking one TC. Baseline HRV and hemodynamics were not different in chronic EC users and TC smokers. In EC users, BP and HR, but not HRV outcomes, increased only after using the ECN, consistent with a nicotine effect on BP and HR. Similarly, in TC smokers, BP and HR but not HRV outcomes increased after smoking one TC. Despite a similar increase in nicotine, the hemodynamic increases were significantly greater after TC smokers smoked one TC compared with the increases after EC users used the ECN. In conclusion, chronic EC and TC smokers exhibit a similar pattern of baseline HRV. Acute increases in BP and HR in EC users are attributable to nicotine, not non-nicotine, constituents in EC aerosol. The greater acute pressor effects after TC compared with ECN may be attributable to non-nicotine, combusted constituents in TC smoke.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Chronic electronic cigarette (EC) users and tobacco cigarette (TC) smokers exhibit a similar level of sympathetic nerve activity as estimated by heart rate variability. Acute increases in blood pressure (BP) and heart rate in EC users are attribute to nicotine, not non-nicotine, constituents in EC aerosol. Acute TC smoking increased BP significantly more than acute EC use, despite similar increases in plasma nicotine, suggestive of additional adverse vascular effects attributable to combusted, non-nicotine constituents in TC smoke.