Chronic health effects associated with electronic cigarette use: A systematic review.

Introduction: Over the last decade, e-cigarette use has been on the rise but with growing health concerns. The objective of this systematic review was to update findings for chronic health outcomes associated with e-cigarette use from the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report. Methods: Three bibliographic databases were searched to identify studies comparing the chronic health effects of e-cigarette users (ECU) to non-smokers (NS), smokers, and/or dual users indexed between 31 August 2017 and 29 January 2021. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second one. Outcomes were synthesized in a narrative manner using counts and based on statistical significance and direction of the association stratified by study design and exposure type. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed. The protocol was prospectively registered on Open Science Framework https://osf.io/u9btp. Results: A total of 180 articles were eligible. This review focused on 93 studies for the 11 most frequently reported outcomes and from which 59 reported on daily e-cigarette use. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low because of study design (84% cross-sectional) and exposure type (27% reported on exclusive ECU, i.e., never smoked traditional cigarettes). Overall, the summary of results for nearly all outcomes, including inflammation, immune response, periodontal and peri-implant clinical parameters, lung function, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular disease, suggested either non-significant or mixed results when daily ECU was compared to NS. This was also observed when comparing exclusive ECU to NS. The only notable exception was related to oral health where most (11/14) studies reported significantly higher inflammation among daily ECU vs. NS. Compared to the smokers, the exclusive-ECUs had no statistically significant differences in inflammation orperiodontal clinical parameters but had mixed findings for peri-implant clinical parameters. Conclusions: This review provides an update to the 2018 NASEM report on chronic health effects of e-cigarette use. While the number of studies has grown, the certainty of evidence remains very low largely because of cross-sectional designs and lack of reporting on exclusive e-cigarette exposure. There remains a need for higher quality intervention and prospective studies to assess causality, with a focus on exclusive e-cigarette use.

The pressure profile test is more sensitive and specific than Palmer's test in predicting correct placement of the Veress needle.

OBJECTIVES: Although the majority of laparoscopic complications result from improper Veress needle placement, the safety tests commonly used to determine correct placement are not always reliable. A prospective observational study (Canadian Task Force Classification II-2) was set up to determine the reliability of Palmer's and pressure profile tests in predicting the correct intraperitoneal placement of the Veress needle prior to insufflation. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred consecutive women undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery between September 2006 and June 2007 were recruited. The operating surgeons conducted Palmer's and pressure profile tests in all 100 cases and recorded the ease with which these tests were performed and whether or not they felt that the needle placement was correct. They were also asked to comment on the saline drop test and double click acoustic test if appropriate. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of Palmer's test was 0.92 while its specificity was 0.5. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the pressure profile test were 0.99 and 0.75, respectively, making this a more reliable test for predicting intraperitoneal placement of the Veress needle. CONCLUSIONS: The pressure profile test was a more reliable guide to confirming the correct placement of the Veress needle as a negative test is more likely to indicate failure to achieve intraperitoneal placement.