Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar 27;65(3):2401675.
doi: 10.1183/13993003.01675-2024. Print 2025 Mar.

Association between e-cigarette exposure and ventilation homogeneity in young adults: a cross-sectional study

Affiliations

Association between e-cigarette exposure and ventilation homogeneity in young adults: a cross-sectional study

Sanja Stanojevic et al. Eur Respir J. .

Abstract

Background: The number of young people who use e-cigarettes is rising. It remains unclear whether e-cigarette use impairs lung function. We aimed to compare ventilation distribution between young adults exposed to e-cigarettes and an unexposed group.

Methods: Study participants included otherwise healthy young adults (18-24 years) who self-reported e-cigarette use and unexposed participants who had no history of e-cigarette, tobacco or cannabis exposure. Exposure to e-cigarettes was defined using three measures: 1) ever-exposed, 2) daily use and 3) puff frequency, which includes none (unexposed), minimal (<2 puffs·h-1), moderate (3-4 puffs·h-1) and heavy (≥5 puffs·h-1). Ventilation distribution was measured using the multiple-breath washout test and reported as lung clearance index (LCI).

Results: A total of 93 participants were recruited; 38 unexposed and 41 exposed participants had LCI measures. The exposed group consisted predominately of participants who used flavoured e-liquids (94.5%) that contained nicotine (93.5%). The magnitude and direction of the difference in LCI across the exposure definitions was similar. Compared with the unexposed group, in the unadjusted models LCI was higher in those with any e-cigarette use (mean difference 0.15, 95% CI -0.004-0.31), daily users (mean difference 0.10, 95% CI -0.08-0.28) and heavy users (mean difference 0.22, 95% CI 0.03-0.41).

Conclusion: This preliminary work suggests that LCI may be a useful biomarker to measure the effects of e-cigarette use on ventilation distribution and to track early functional impairment of the small airways.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: S. Stanojevic reports grants from the ATS (Chair: ATS/ERS Updated Technical Standard on PFT interpretation), consulting fees from Chiesi Farmaceutici, speaker fees from Vyaire Medical, participation on a medical advisory board with Ndd Technologies, leadership roles with the ATS (Pulmonary Function Testing Committee) and ERS (Global Lung Function Initiative), and other non-financial interests as a statistical editor for Thorax, editorial board member for the European Respiratory Journal, and junior associate editor for the Canadian Journal of Respiratory, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine. The remaining authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Summary of study participant recruitment and exclusion criteria. A total of 79 participants had acceptable multiple-breath washout (MBW) data. A total of 63 participants had acceptable MBW and spirometry data.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Stem-and-leaf plots of lung clearance index (LCI) between exposure groups: a) ever-exposed versus unexposed, b) daily exposure versus unexposed and c) heavy users (≥5 puffs·h−1) versus unexposed. The red line represents the mean LCI in each group.

Comment in

  • Vaping and lung health: less known unknowns.
    Soriano JB, Morera J, Ancochea J. Soriano JB, et al. Eur Respir J. 2025 Mar 27;65(3):2402482. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02482-2024. Print 2025 Mar. Eur Respir J. 2025. PMID: 40147858 No abstract available.

References

    1. Hammond D, Reid JL, Rynard VL, et al. . Prevalence of vaping and smoking among adolescents in Canada, England, and the United States: repeat national cross sectional surveys. BMJ 2019; 365: l2219. doi:10.1136/bmj.l2219 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hatsukami DK, Carroll DM. Tobacco harm reduction: past history, current controversies and a proposed approach for the future. Prev Med 2020; 140: 106099. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106099 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gotts JE, Jordt SE, McConnell R, et al. . What are the respiratory effects of e-cigarettes? BMJ 2019; 366: l5275. doi:10.1136/bmj.l5275 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allbright K, Villandre J, Crotty Alexander LE, et al. . The paradox of the safer cigarette: understanding the pulmonary effects of electronic cigarettes. Eur Respir J 2024; 63: 2301494. doi:10.1183/13993003.01494-2023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Munkholm M, Mortensen J. Mucociliary clearance: pathophysiological aspects. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2014; 34: 171–177. doi:10.1111/cpf.12085 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources