4.5 Article

High Blood Viscosity Is Closely Associated With Cigarette Smoking and Markedly Reduced by Smoking Cessation

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages 185-189

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0335

Keywords

Blood rheology; Cardiovascular risk; Smoking

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare for Research on Economic Effects of Various Strategies for Smoking Cessation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Cigarette smoking is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction and stroke. To date, a useful and convenient method of predicting such events in smokers has not been established. The rheological properties of blood assessed by the microchannel method reflect the blood's viscosity and the state of microthrombus formation, which may predict cardiovascular thrombotic events. Methods and Results: Blood fluidity was assessed in 74 smoking patients (54 men, 20 women, mean age 57.9 years) by measuring the blood passage time (BPT) in an aliquot (100 mu l) of blood using the Micro Channel Array Flow Analyzer. BPT was significantly related with smoking variables such as daily consumption of tobacco (r=0.236, P=0.044), Brinkman's index (r=0.252, P=0.033), the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (r=0.257, P=0.029), and the score of a self-rating depression scale (r=0.236, P<0.05). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that an independent BPT determinant was daily consumption of tobacco (r=0.326, P=0.045). Furthermore, smoking cessation markedly decreased BPT from 63.0 s to 49.7 s (P=0.002) at 3 months after the start of therapy. Conclusions: Unfavorable blood rheology is closely associated with cigarette smoking and may reflect increased cardiovascular risk in smokers. The study results also suggest that such risk can be reduced after only 3 months of smoking cessation. (Circ J 2011; 75: 185-189)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available