Association between e-cigarette use and myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed while conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis [12]. We registered our study protocol on PROSPERO, University of York (CRD42022362625). The primary outcome of this study was the diagnosis of MI in e-cig smokers as defined by the included studies.

Literature search

Electronic search through Medline, Google Scholar (starting 10 pages), EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science was performed from their inception till September 1st, 2022, with the search string: (vape OR electronic nicotine delivery system* OR e-cig* OR electronic cigarette*) AND (myocardial infarct* OR coronary heart disease OR acute coronary syndrome OR angina OR ischemic heart disease OR cardiovascular disease). A previously published search string was also incorporated [13]. We also searched the included studies’ references, related articles, and suggested results from the PubMed database for studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Gray literature was also incorporated in our search.

Data screening and eligibility

The search results were exported to EndNote, Version 20 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, USA) for the removal of duplicate studies. Then, the remaining results were moved to an Excel (v2019, Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA) spreadsheet with general details (title, authors, abstract, year of publication, journal). Screening of titles and abstracts for potential studies was done by 2 independent authors (AS and MTA) and a 3rd author (AS) was involved to resolve disagreements and discrepancies. The inclusion criteria for study selection were the following; (1) human only study that was either an investigational (randomized or non-randomized controlled trial) or an observational study (cross-sectional, prospective, retrospective, case–control or post hoc analysis of a cohort data) or research letters or conference abstracts containing information fulfilling our inclusion criteria, (2) no restriction on the follow-up duration and age group of participants, gender/race of the participant, country, language of the article, was followed, (3) study with a minimum of 10 participants were selected, (4) study that reported risk ratios, odds ratios, episodes of MI were included. Exclusion criteria were, (1) studies not reporting MI events, (2) books, reviews, case reports, thesis, duplicated studies or incomplete data, animal studies, and previous systematic reviews/meta-analyses.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Data extraction was performed by two independent authors (NU and MKSK), the extraction sheets were cross-matched, and disparities were resolved with the consensus of a third author (AS). A data extraction sheet in excel was created including the study characteristics (title, author, year of publication, sample size of the study), participants’ characteristics (age, sex, any previous history of diabetes, and hypertension race and BMI) and outcomes (events of MI in various groups of e-cig users and non-users, odds ratios, risk ratios). E-cig use compared to non-users was established, which was further divided into daily (everyday users) and someday users. Everyday users were daily consumers. Someday users were defined as those not consuming e-cigs daily but at least 2 days a week, and smokers using both combustible cigarettes and e-cigs (dual users) were compared to non-users. We also analyzed former e-cig users, participants who answered no to currently consuming any e-cigs at the time of the survey but have used them in their life, to see if there was a prolonged effect. Anytime use, defined as e-cig consumption for at least 10 days in their life, was collected as well. Non-users were defined to be non-active consumers of e-cigs. The quality assessment of these studies included was assessed by 2 independent authors (AK and SHAR) using the Axis Tool, which is a scale used to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies for systematic reviews and meta-analyses [14].

Statistical analysis

Review Manager (Version 5.3, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) was used for the statistical analyses. Dichotomous data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel–Haenszel method. To depict the outcome of the analyses, forest plots were obtained and reported. Adjusted effect sizes were pooled through the inverse variance weighted method using a random-effects model. The Higgins I2 statistic was looked at to assess heterogeneity, and an I2 value of > 50% was considered to indicate significant heterogeneity. We omitted one study at a time to assess whether the results may be disproportionately influenced by any single study and to check for sensitivity analysis across all the outcomes. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant in all cases.

The primary outcomes were the incidence of MI in users of e-cigs and dual users compared to non-users. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of MI in everyday, someday, and former users of e-cigs compared to non-users. Another secondary outcome was to compare anytime users versus those who have never used e-cigs.

Comments (0)

No login
gif