Effects of Smoking and Smoking Cessation on Endothelial Function 1-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Clinical Trial

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin 53792, USA.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 15.34). 03/2010; 55(18):1988-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine whether smoking cessation improves flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery.
The long-term effects of continued smoking and smoking cessation on endothelial function have not been described previously.
This was a 1-year, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the effects of 5 smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. FMD was measured by B-mode ultrasonography before and 1 year after the target smoking cessation date. Cessation was verified by exhaled carbon monoxide levels. DeltaFMD was compared among study arms and between subjects who successfully quit smoking and those who continued to smoke. Predictors of baseline FMD and DeltaFMD were identified by multivariable regression.
The 1,504 current smokers (58% female, 84% white) were 44.7 +/- 11.1 years of age and smoked 21.4 +/- 8.9 cigarettes/day. Baseline FMD was similar in each treatment arm (p = 0.499) and was predicted by BA diameter (p < 0.001), reactive hyperemia blood flow (p < 0.001), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.001), and carbon monoxide (p = 0.012) levels. After 1 year, 36.2% quit smoking. FMD increased by 1% (6.2 +/- 4.4% to 7.2 +/- 4.2%) after 1 year (p = 0.005) in those who quit, but did not change (p = 0.643) in those who continued to smoke. Improved FMD among quitters remained significant (p = 0.010) after controlling for changes in brachial artery diameter, reactive hyperemia, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the presence of a home smoking ban.
Despite weight gain, smoking cessation leads to prolonged improvements in endothelial function, which may mediate part of the reduced cardiovascular disease risk observed after smoking cessation. (Smoking Cessation Medications: Efficacy, Mechanisms and Algorithms; NCT00332644).

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Progress in the modification of conventional coronary risk factors and lifestyle behavior has reduced the incidence of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease; nonetheless, it continues to be the leading cause of mortality in the world. This might be attributed to the defective risk stratifying and prevention strategy for coronary artery disease. In the current clinical setting, atherosclerotic coronary artery disease risk is estimated on the basis of identifying and quantifying only traditional risk factors; it does not take into consideration nontraditional risk factors. In addition, most of the prevailing therapies for atherosclerosis are targeted toward traditional risk factors rather than atherosclerosis itself. It is desirable to develop a method that can directly assess the activity of atherogenesis at every moment. Endothelial function is an integrated index of all atherogenic and atheroprotective factors present in an individual including nontraditional factors and heretofore unknown factors, and it is reported to have additional predictive value for future cardiovascular events to traditional risk factors. Moreover, endothelial function has a pivotal role in all phases of atherosclerosis, from initiation to atherothrombotic complication, and is reversible at every phase, indicating that endothelial function-guided therapies might be effective and feasible in cardiovascular practice. Thus, the introduction of endothelial function testing into clinical practice might enable us to innovate individualized cardiovascular medicine. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge on the contribution of endothelial dysfunction to atherogenesis and review the methods that assess endothelial function. Finally, we focus on the effects of major antiatherosclerotic disease therapies on endothelial function and argue the possibility of noninvasive assessment of endothelial function aiming at individualized cardiovascular medicine.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We evaluated coronary artery disease (CAD) extent, severity, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in never, past, and current smokers undergoing coronary CT angiography (CCTA). We evaluated 9456 patients (57.1 ± 12.3 years, 55.5% male) without known CAD (1588 current smokers; 2183 past smokers who quit ≥3 months before CCTA; and 5685 never smokers). By risk-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards models, we related smoking status to MACE (all-cause death or non-fatal myocardial infarction). We further performed 1:1:1 propensity matching for 1000 in each group evaluate event risk among individuals with similar age, gender, CAD risk factors, and symptom presentation. During a mean follow-up of 2.8 ± 1.9 years, 297 MACE occurred. Compared with never smokers, current and past smokers had greater atherosclerotic burden including extent of plaque defined as segments with any plaque (2.1 ± 2.8 vs. 2.6 ± 3.2 vs. 3.1 ± 3.3, P < 0.0001) and prevalence of obstructive CAD [1-vessel disease (VD): 10.6% vs. 14.9% vs. 15.2%, P < 0.001; 2-VD: 4.4% vs. 6.1% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.001; 3-VD: 3.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 4.3%, P < 0.001]. Compared with never smokers, current smokers experienced higher MACE risk [hazard ratio (HR) 1.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-2.6, P < 0.001], while past smokers did not (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-1.6, P = 0.35). Among matched individuals, current smokers had higher MACE risk (HR 2.6, 95% CI 1.6-4.2, P < 0.001), while past smokers did not (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.4, P = 0.39). Similar findings were observed for risk of all-cause death. Among patients without known CAD undergoing CCTA, current and past smokers had increased burden of atherosclerosis compared with never smokers; however, risk of MACE was heightened only in current smokers. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email:
    European Heart Journal 02/2015; 36(17). DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv013 · 14.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to temporarily replace much of the nicotine from cigarettes to reduce motivation to smoke and nicotine withdrawal symptoms, thus easing the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were: To determine the effect of NRT compared to placebo in aiding smoking cessation, and to consider whether there is a difference in effect for the different forms of NRT (chewing gum, transdermal patches, oral and nasal sprays, inhalers and tablets/lozenges) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes. To determine whether the effect is influenced by the dosage, form and timing of use of NRT; the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; or the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated. To determine whether combinations of NRT are more likely to lead to successful quitting than one type alone. To determine whether NRT is more or less likely to lead to successful quitting compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning 'NRT' or any type of nicotine replacement therapy in the title, abstract or keywords. Date of most recent search July 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or to no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of participants, the dose, duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for each study. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 150 trials; 117 with over 50,000 participants contributed to the primary comparison between any type of NRT and a placebo or non-NRT control group. The risk ratio (RR) of abstinence for any form of NRT relative to control was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 1.68). The pooled RRs for each type were 1.49 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.60, 55 trials) for nicotine gum; 1.64 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.78, 43 trials) for nicotine patch; 1.95 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.36, 6 trials) for oral tablets/lozenges; 1.90 (95% CI 1.36 to 2.67, 4 trials) for nicotine inhaler; and 2.02 (95% CI 1.49 to 2.73, 4 trials) for nicotine nasal spray. One trial of oral spray had an RR of 2.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 4.94). The effects were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. The effect was similar in a small group of studies that aimed to assess use of NRT obtained without a prescription. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2 mg gum, but weaker evidence of a benefit from higher doses of patch. There was evidence that combining a nicotine patch with a rapid delivery form of NRT was more effective than a single type of NRT (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.51, 9 trials). The RR for NRT used for a short period prior to the quit date was 1.18 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.40, 8 trials), just missing statistical significance, though the efficacy increased when we pooled only patch trials and when we removed one trial in which confounding was likely. Five studies directly compared NRT to a non-nicotine pharmacotherapy, bupropion; there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). A combination of NRT and bupropion was more effective than bupropion alone (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.45, 4 trials). Adverse effects from using NRT are related to the type of product, and include skin irritation from patches and irritation to the inside of the mouth from gum and tablets. There is no evidence that NRT increases the risk of heart attacks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (gum, transdermal patch, nasal spray, inhaler and sublingual tablets/lozenges) can help people who make a quit attempt to increase their chances of successfully stopping smoking. NRTs increase the rate of quitting by 50 to 70%, regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the individual. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD000146.pub4 · 5.94 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 26, 2014