Why the study?
It was unknown whether increasingly common electronic cigarette use is related to systemic inflammation that may lead to cardiovascular disease, similar to conventional cigarette smoking.
Does electronic cigarette use increase serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and uric acid levels in adult men compared to conventional cigarette use or nonsmoking?
Does electronic cigarette use increase serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and uric acid levels in adult men compared to conventional cigarette use or nonsmoking?
Electronic cigarette use is associated with elevated systemic inflammation markers (hs-CRP and uric acid) similar to conventional cigarette smoking, suggesting potential cardiovascular risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
E-cigarette use may warrant inflammation monitoring in risk assessment; leaves open independent cardiovascular effects beyond conventional smoking.
The present study investigated whether electronic cigarette use, which is becoming increasingly common, was related to systemic inflammation that may lead to cardiovascular disease, similar to conventional cigarette smoking. The study included 1208 men (19-65 years old) who participated in the 7 th Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2016). The participants were categorized as electronic cigarette users, conventional cigarette users, and nonsmokers. Serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein was used as an inflammatory index, and uric acid level was used as a metabolic indicator. After adjusting for confounding factors, electronic cigarette use was significantly associated with elevated serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (β = 1.326, P = .002), uric acid levels (β = 0.400, P = .042), and hyperuricemia (uric acid level of >7 mg/mL; odds ratio = 2.67, 95% confidence interval = 1.27-5.58). These findings suggest that electronic cigarette use may be associated with systemic inflammation markers, similar to conventional cigarette use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moon et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: