4.4 Article

Endothelial dysfunction and type of cigarette smoked: the impact of 'light' versus regular cigarette smoking

期刊

VASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 103-105

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1191/1358863x04vm529oa

关键词

cigarette smoking; endothelial dysfunction; flow-mediated dilatation; light cigarette; vascular endothelium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute cigarette smoking leads to temporary endothelial dysfunction, which is an early event in atherogenesis. Sufficient data concerning the effect of cigarettes with low tar and nicotine yield are lacking. Seventeen healthy individuals (nine women, eight men, aged 27.8 +/- 3.6 years) were subjected to evaluation of endothelial function by means of endothelium-dependent, flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery, before, immediately after and 30, 60 and 90 min after smoking a regular cigarette (nicotine 0.9 mg, tar 12 mg) or the corresponding 'light' cigarette (nicotine 0.6 mg, tar 8 mg). The following day, measurements were repeated after smoking the opposite kind of cigarette. Baseline FMD was 6.1 +/- 1.6% and 7.2 +/- 2.0% in the light and regular cigarette groups, respectively (p = NS). The overall effect of the regular cigarette over time on FMD compared with the light cigarette was significantly different (F = 3.039, p = 0.023). FMD was significantly depressed after smoking both types (light: F = 8.192, p < 0.001; regular: F = 16.698, p < 0.001). Immediately after smoking, FMD declined in both groups (light: 3.0 +/- 2.4% and regular: 1.6 +/- 3.2%, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), and it remained significantly depressed in the regular cigarette group at 30 min (0.75 +/- 1.5%, p < 0.001) and 60 min (3.5 +/- 3.1%, p = 0.024), while in the light cigarette group FMD differences were abolished at 30, 60 and 90 min after smoking. In conclusion, acute smoking of both regular and light cigarettes leads to temporary vasomotor dysfunction; its duration is shorter after smoking a 'light' cigarette.

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

4.4
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