Electronic cigarettes and cardiovascular diseases: An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The association between electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains inconclusive. This study aims to compare CVD risk from the use of e-cigarettes, cigarettes, combined cigarette and e-cigarette use, and non-use. METHODS This study is a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). MEDLINE and Scopus databases (through February 2024) were used to identify eligible studies. Observational studies that investigated the effect of e-cigarettes on the risk of composite CVD, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, compared to cigarette, dual use, or non-use, were included. NMA was applied to estimate relative effects (i.e. adjusted odds ratio, AOR) of e-cigarette, cigarette, and dual use, on composite CVD, MI, and stroke outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for surveys and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies. RESULTS Eleven adult population studies were eligible for review. E-cigarette, cigarette, and dual use were significantly associated with composite CVD outcomes. Pooled AORs (95% CI) were 1.31 (1.05-1.62) for e-cigarette, 1.57 (1.30-1.88) for cigarette, and 1.67 (1.37-2.03) for dual use. Additionally, former cigarette and former dual use significantly increased the risk of composite CVD outcomes, compared to non-use. The pooled AORs (95% CI) were 1.29 (1.05- 1.59) for former cigarette, and 1.46 (1.03-2.08) for former dual use, while former e-cigarette use was not significantly associated with composite CVD endpoints. For MI and stroke outcomes, only cigarette and dual use were significantly associated with these events. CONCLUSIONS Current e-cigarette, cigarette, and dual use were significantly associated with increased risk of composite CVD outcomes, while only cigarette and dual use significantly increased the risk of MI and stroke, compared to non-use. However, these findings were primarily based on cross-sectional data limiting the temporality of effect; additional prospective cohort studies are needed to confirm our findings.