Abstract

BackgroundTraditional hookah smoking has grown quickly to become a global tobacco epidemic. More recently, electronic hookahs (e-hookahs)—vaped through traditional water pipes—were introduced as healthier alternatives to combustible hookah. With combustible tobacco smoking, oxidative stress, inflammation, and vascular stiffness are key components in the development and progression of atherosclerosis. The comparable effects of hookah are unknown.Research QuestionWhat is the differential acute effect of e-hookah vaping vs combustible hookah smoking on oxidation, inflammation, and arterial stiffness?Study Design and MethodsIn a randomized crossover design study, among a cohort of 17 healthy young adult chronic hookah smokers, we investigated the effect of e-hookah vaping and hookah smoking on measures of conduit arterial stiffness, including carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation index-corrected for heart rate before and after a 30-min exposure session. We assessed a panel of circulating biomarkers indicative of inflammation and oxidants and measured plasma nicotine and exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) levels before and after the sessions.Resultse-Hookah vaping tended to lead to a larger acute increase in PWV than hookah smoking (mean ± SE: e-hookah, +0.74 ± 0.12 m/s; combustible hookah, +0.57 ± 0.14 m/s [P < .05 for both]), indicative of large artery stiffening. Compared with baseline, only e-hookah vaping induced an acute increase in augmentation index (e-hookah, +5.58 ± 1.54% [P = .004]; combustible hookah, +2.87 ± 2.12% [P = not significant]). These vascular changes were accompanied by elevation of the proinflammatory biomarkers high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and tumor necrosis factor α after vaping (all P < .05). No changes in biomarkers of inflammation and oxidants were observed after smoking. Compared with baseline, exhaled CO levels were higher after smoking than after vaping (+36.81 ± 6.70 parts per million vs –0.38 ± 0.22 parts per million; P < .001), whereas plasma nicotine concentrations were comparable (+6.14 ± 1.03 ng/mL vs +5.24 ± 0.96 ng/mL; P = .478).InterpretationAlthough advertised to be “safe,” flavored e-hookah vaping exerts injurious effects on the vasculature that are, at least in part, mediated by inflammation.Trial RegistryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03690427; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

Highlights

  • Traditional hookah smoking has grown quickly to become a global tobacco epidemic

  • TRIAL REGISTRY: INTERPRETATION: In a randomized crossover design study, among a cohort of 17 healthy young adult chronic hookah smokers, we investigated the effect of e-hookah vaping and hookah smoking on measures of conduit arterial stiffness, including carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), augmentation index-corrected for heart rate before and after a

  • Compared with combustible hookah smoking, e-hookah vaping tended to lead to a larger increase in large artery stiffening, accompanied by elevation of the proinflammatory biomarkers highsensitivity C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and tumor necrosis factor a

Read more

Summary

Results

Sixty-eight potential participants responded to advertisement in local media, colleges, and universities, and 42 were screened for participation. With e-hookah vaping sessions, all participants achieved comparable acute increases in heart rate, BP, and measures of arterial stiffness, four participants reported experiencing throat irritation. The plasma proinflammatory biomarkers hsCRP, fibrinogen, and TNFa significantly increased acutely after e-hookah vaping Changes from before to after exposure were significantly different between the two types of products for TNFa (P 1⁄4 .005), but not for hsCRP or fibrinogen (both P values were not significant), effect sizes were large for all three measures (d 1⁄4 1.70, d 1⁄4 1.09, and d 1⁄4 1.05, respectively). Comparing baseline values of both inflammatory and antioxidant biomarkers between the two experimental sessions showed no significant differences (.10 < P < .95). No difference was found between plasma nicotine concentrations after using either product (P 1⁄4 .478)

Study Design and Participants
Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call