• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Lower Disease Burden with E-Cigarettes than Tobacco Cigarette

by Amy Eckner • December 9, 2014

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

How does the potential disease burden presented by tobacco cigarette (TC) smoke compare to that of electronic cigarette (EC) vapor?

Background: ECs are a fairly new concept lacking set regulations for manufacturing and use, and it is difficult currently to assess long-term health effects on users and nonusers. Effects of acute or chronic and active or passive vaping on complete blood count, lung function, and myocardial function were investigated in this study.

You Might Also Like

  • Pathology of Lung Disease Linked to Vaping
  • Smokeless Tobacco and Health Effects: Cancer Specialists Weigh In
  • Are E-Cigarettes Effective in Smoking Cessation?
  • Tobacco Plays Important Role in Modulating HPV+OPSCC Clinical Outcomes
Explore This Issue
December 2014

Study design: Clinical study review.

Setting: Department of Otolaryngology, Cornell Weill Medical College, New York City.

Synopsis: In combustion versus vaporization: TCs produce 4,000 chemicals, of which 100 have been identified as known carcinogens during combustion, while ECs do not require combustion to deliver TC-comparable doses of nicotine. Continuous monitoring of the indoor air environment during EC vaping did not detect any significant increase in formaldehyde concentration. Active TC smokers and nonsmokers exposed to TC smoke showed a significant increase in white blood cell count, lymphocyte, and granulocyte count; active and passive EC vaping showed no significant changes. In lung function parameters: Studies show that acute active and chronic passive EC vaping generated smaller changes in lung function compared to acute active and passive TC smoking for both current smokers and nonsmokers. In effects on myocardial function and associated potential disease burden: TC smokers presented data indicative of acute impairment of left ventricular function, while EC users showed no signs of alterations from baseline levels. Limitations included manufacturing variances that affect clinical effects, unknown effects of heating the metal and silicate components of the EC device, and an unknown long-term EC disease burden.

Bottom line: ECs impart a lower potential disease burden than conventional TCs based on the comparison of the chemical analysis of carcinogenic profiles and association with health-indicating parameters.

Citation: Oh AY, Kacker A. Do electronic cigarettes impart a lower potential disease burden than conventional tobacco cigarettes? Review on e-cigarette vapor versus tobacco smoke. Laryngoscope. 2014:124:2702-2706.

Filed Under: Head and Neck, Head and Neck, Literature Reviews, Practice Focus Tagged With: smokingIssue: December 2014

You Might Also Like:

  • Pathology of Lung Disease Linked to Vaping
  • Smokeless Tobacco and Health Effects: Cancer Specialists Weigh In
  • Are E-Cigarettes Effective in Smoking Cessation?
  • Tobacco Plays Important Role in Modulating HPV+OPSCC Clinical Outcomes

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Would you choose a concierge physician as your PCP?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • New Standardized Otolaryngology Curriculum Launching July 1 Should Be Valuable Resource For Physicians Around The World
  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • A Journey Through Pay Inequity: A Physician’s Firsthand Account

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Complications for When Physicians Change a Maiden Name

    • Excitement Around Gene Therapy for Hearing Restoration
    • “Small” Acts of Kindness
    • How To: Endoscopic Total Maxillectomy Without Facial Skin Incision
    • Science Communities Must Speak Out When Policies Threaten Health and Safety
    • Observation Most Cost-Effective in Addressing AECRS in Absence of Bacterial Infection

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939