ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2020
Profiling the Acute Effects of Modified Risk Products: Evidence from the SUR-VAPES (Sapienza University of Rome-Vascular Assessment of Proatherosclerotic Effects of Smoking) Cluster Study.
Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nicotine-containing products and the cardiovascular system: mechanisms and global health implications.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology: General Perspectives and Focus on Interventional Cardiology.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Sex-Related Differences in Oxidative, Platelet, and Vascular Function in Chronic Users of Heat-not-Burn vs. Traditional Combustion Cigarettes.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Differential effects of heat-not-burn and conventional cigarettes on coronary flow, myocardial and vascular function.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The Role of Antioxidants Supplementation in Clinical Practice: Focus on Cardiovascular Risk Factors.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Heat-not-burn tobacco products: an emerging threat to cardiovascular health.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2020Review
- Impact of Electronic Alternatives to Tobacco Cigarettes on Indoor Air Particular Matter Levels.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Vaping Cardiovascular Health Risks: an Updated Umbrella Review.Current emergency and hospital medicine reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewModified risk products (MRP) are promoted as a safer alternative to traditional combustion cigarettes (TCC) in chronic smokers. Evidence for their lower hazardous profile is building, despite several controversies. Yet, it is unclear whether individual responses to MRP differ among consumers. We hypothesized that different clusters of subjects exist in terms of acute effects of MRP. RECENT
findingsPooling data from a total of 60 individuals, cluster analysis identified at least three clusters (labelled 1 to 3) of subjects with different electronic vaping cigarettes (EVC) effects and at least two clusters (labelled 4 to 5) of subjects with different heat-not-burn cigarettes (HNBC) effects. Specifically, oxidative stress, platelet aggregation, and endothelial dysfunction after EVC were significantly different cluster-wise (all p < 0.05), and oxidative stress and platelet aggregation after HNBC were significantly different (all p < 0.05). In particular, subjects belonging to Cluster 1 appeared to have less detrimental responses to EVC usage than subjects in Cluster 2 and 3, as shown by non-significant changes in flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and less marked increase in Nox2-derived peptide (NOX). Conversely, those assigned to Cluster 3 had the worst reaction in terms of changes in FMD, NOX, and P-selectin. Furthermore, individuals belonging to Cluster 4 responded unfavorably to both HNBC and EVC, whereas those in Cluster 5 interestingly showed less adverse results after using HNBC than EVC. Results for main analyses were consistent employing different clusters, tests, and bootstrap. Individual responses to MRP differ and smokers aiming at using EVC or HNBC as a risk reduction strategy should consider trying different MRP aiming at finding the one which is less detrimental, with subjects resembling those in Cluster 1 preferably using EVC and those resembling Cluster 5 preferably using HNBC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.