4.6 Article

Short-term respiratory effects of e-cigarettes in healthy individuals and smokers with asthma

期刊

RESPIROLOGY
卷 23, 期 3, 页码 291-297

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/resp.13180

关键词

asthma; e-cigarette; exhaled nitric oxide; impulse oscillometry system; peripheral airway obstruction

资金

  1. Behrakis Foundation, Boston, MA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectiveThis study investigated the duration of immediate respiratory effects of e-cigarette smoking (ECS) and tested the hypothesis that ECS has more prominent effects in asthmatics compared with healthy smokers (HS). MethodsFifty-four smokers, 27 healthy (HS group) and 27 with intermittent asthma (mild asthma (MA) group) underwent a control session (no liquid, no resistor coil inside e-cigarette cartridge) and an experimental session of ECS using standardized puffing settings. Impulse oscillometry impedance (Z), resistance (R), reactance (X) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were measured before and 0, 15 and 30min after control and experimental sessions. ResultsControl session revealed no significant changes. In the experimental session, immediately post-ECS, both groups exhibited a significant increase in respiratory system total impedance at 5Hz (Z5) (P<0.001), respiratory system resistance at 5Hz (R5) (P<0.001), respiratory system resistance at 10Hz (R10) (P<0.001), respiratory system resistance at 20Hz (R20) (P<0.05), resonant frequency (P<0.001) and reactance area (P<0.05). MA exhibited higher baseline values and a more prominent effect immediately after ECS compared with HS for Z5 (P=0.022), R5 (P=0.010) and R10 (P=0.013). FeNO decreased significantly in both groups (P<0.001); HS returned to baseline values in 15min while the MA maintained significantly lower values for an additional 15min (P<0.05) and returned to baseline values at 30min post-ECS. ConclusionA single session of ECS had respiratory mechanical and inflammatory effects, which were more prominent in smokers with asthma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据