Propylene glycol and glycerol are electronic cigarettes vehicles allowing liquid vaporization and nicotine transport. The respective effects of these different constituents on the cardiovascular system are unknown. We assessed the differential effects of vehicles (propylene glycol and glycerol) and nicotine on microcirculatory function, arterial stiffness, hemodynamic parameters and oxidative stress. Twenty-five tobacco smokers were exposed to vaping with and without nicotine, and sham vaping, in a randomized, single blind, 3-period crossover design study. Neither sham-vaping nor vaping in the absence of nicotine resulted in modifications of cardiovascular parameters or oxidative stress. In contrast, vaping with nicotine: 1) impaired acetylcholine mediated vasodilation (mean ± standard error mean) (area under curve, perfusion unit (PU), 3385 ± 27PU to 2271 ± 27PU, p < 0.0001); 2) increased indices of arterial stiffness, namely augmentation index corrected for heart rhythm (−3.5 ± 1.5% to 1.9 ± 2.3%; p = 0.013) and pulse wave velocity (4.9 ± 0.1 m.s−1 to 5.3 ± 0.1 m.s−1; p < 0.0001); 3) increased systolic and diastolic blood pressures as well as heart rate (all p < 0.0001) and finally; 4) raised plasma myeloperoxidase (median [interquartile range]) (13.6 ng.ml−1 [10–17.7] to 18.9 ng.ml−1 [12.2–54.4], p = 0.005). Our findings demonstrated that high temperature e-cigarette vehicle vaporization does not alter micro- and macro-vascular function, and oxidative stress, and that these effects are solely attributable to nicotine.
When heated by an electronic cigarette, propylene glycol and glycerol produce a nicotine-carrying-aerosol. This hygroscopic/hyperosmolar aerosol can deposit deep within the lung. Whether these deposits trigger local inflammation and disturb pulmonary gas exchanges is not known. The aim of this study was to assess the acute effects of high-wattage electronic cigarette vaping with or without nicotine on lung inflammation biomarkers, transcutaneous gas tensions, and pulmonary function tests in young and healthy tobacco smokers. Acute effects of vaping without nicotine on arterial blood gas tensions were also assessed in heavy smokers suspected of coronary artery disease. Using a single-blind within-subjects study design, 25 young tobacco smokers underwent three experimental sessions in random order: sham-vaping and vaping with and without nicotine at 60 W. Twenty heavy smokers were also exposed to sham-vaping ( n = 10) or vaping without nicotine ( n = 10) in an open-label, randomized parallel study. In the young tobacco smokers, compared with sham-vaping: 1) serum club cell protein-16 increased after vaping without nicotine (mean ± SE, −0.5 ± 0.2 vs. +1.1 ± 0.3 µg/l, P = 0.013) and vaping with nicotine (+1.2 ± 0.3 µg/l, P = 0.009); 2) transcutaneous oxygen tension decreased for 60 min after vaping without nicotine (nadir, −0.3 ± 1 vs. −15.3 ± 2.3 mmHg, P < 0.001) and for 80-min after vaping with nicotine (nadir, −19.6 ± 2.8 mmHg, P < 0.001). Compared with sham vaping, vaping without nicotine decreased arterial oxygen tension for 5 min in heavy-smoking patients (+5.4 ± 3.3 vs. −5.4 ± 1.9 mmHg, P = 0.012). Acute vaping of propylene glycol/glycerol aerosol at high wattage with or without nicotine induces airway epithelial injury and sustained decrement in transcutaneous oxygen tension in young tobacco smokers. Intense vaping conditions also transiently impair arterial oxygen tension in heavy smokers.
Comparing VDD and DDD pacing, a significantly larger number of VDD-paced patients developed poor atrial signal detection without clinical impact. However, atrial under sensing did not influence the incidence of atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, dilated cardiomyopathy, or mortality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.