Vascular benefits of stopping smoking are rapid
May 6, 2008 | Lisa Nainggolan

Boston, MA - People who quit smoking will see a rapid decline in the risk of death from coronary heart disease (CHD) and other vascular disorders, a new analysis of the Nurses' Health Study shows [1]. And although the study participants were all women, lead author Dr Stacey Kenfield (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) told heartwire: "We feel that we can generalize our findings to men who have a similar smoking profile."

Kenfield and colleagues report their findings in the May 7, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. They found that 61% of the full benefit of quitting in regard to CHD mortality and 42% of the full benefit of quitting in regard to cerebrovascular deaths was realized within the first five years of stopping smoking.

"The harms of smoking are reversible, but for some causes of death, the reduction takes many years, so it's never too early to quit smoking. On the other hand, for some diseases—eg, CHD—there is a rapid decline in risk, so it's never too late to stop smoking, even if you've been smoking for many, many years," Kenfield noted.


First few cigarettes a day account for vascular disease risk
It's never too late to stop smoking, even if you've been smoking for many, many years.

In their analysis, the researchers have included an additional 16 years of follow-up from the original Nurses' Health Study cohort report, including a total of 12 483 deaths, and updated estimates for total mortality, further categorized into CHD, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a range of cancers, and other causes.

They point out that the smoking status of participants was updated every two years, enabling a more accurate evaluation of the detrimental effects from long-term smoking and the risk reduction over time from sustained cessation. Other studies—which have not updated smoking exposure over time or used smoking information just before diagnoses—may obscure the harms of continuing to smoke and the benefits of cessation, they note, "because current smokers may quit smoking over time and some past smokers may resume smoking."

Participants were classified as never, past, or current smokers, with current smokers split into categories of one to 14 cigarettes per day, 15 to 24, 25 to 34, and 35 or more.

The relationship between an increasing risk of death with increasing numbers of cigarettes smoked per day varied by disease outcome—the trend was less pronounced for vascular disease, suggesting that the first few cigarettes account for most of the increased risk; in contrast, an increased number of cigarettes smoked per day substantially increased the risk of death from respiratory disease.

Vascular disease mortality by number of cigarettes smoked per day among 104 519 women in the Nurses' Health Study followed up from 1980 to 2004a

Never smoker
Past smoker
Current smoker
Current smoker, 1-14 cigarettes smoked per day
Current smoker, 15-24 cigarettes smoked per day
Current smoker, 25 to 34 cigarettes smoked per day
Current smoker, >35 cigarettes smoked per day
p for trend
Total vascular disease deaths, nb (n=2957)
1073
977
907
261
396
163
87
Multivariate HRc
1 (reference)
1.32
3.26
2.66
3.53
3.73
3.73
<0.001

a. All covariates, including smoking, updated until diagnosis of disease

b. Includes CHD and cerebrovascular disease

c. Adjusted for age, follow-up period, history of hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, body-mass index, change in weight from age 18 to baseline (1980), alcohol intake, physical activity, previous use of oral contraceptives, postmenopausal estrogen therapy use and menopausal status, parental history of MI at age 65 years or younger, cigarettes smoked per day during the period prior to quitting, and age at starting smoking

Smokers were also categorized with regard to the age at which they started smoking: 17 years or younger, 18 to 21, 22 to 25, and 26 years or older. For vascular disease, the age of starting smoking seemed to play less of a role in determining the risk of death than it did for respiratory disease, lung cancer, and other smoking-related cancer mortality.

Vascular disease mortality by age at starting smoking among 79 172 current smokers in the Nurses' Health Study followed up from 1980 to 2004a

Never smoker
Starting age <17
Starting age 18-21
Starting age 22-25
Starting age >26
p for trend
Total vascular disease deaths, nb (n=2957)
1073
190
517
133
67
Multivariate HRc
1 (reference)
3.61
3.15
3.49
3.44
0.84

a. All covariates, including smoking, updated until diagnosis of disease

b. Includes CHD and cerebrovascular disease

c. Adjusted for age, follow-up period, history of hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, body-mass index, change in weight from age 18 to baseline (1980), alcohol intake, physical activity, previous use of oral contraceptives, postmenopausal estrogen therapy use and menopausal status, parental history of MI at age 65 years or younger, cigarettes smoked per day during the period prior to quitting, and age at starting smoking


Rapid decline in vascular death risk in first five years after quitting

For the cessation analysis, past smokers were classified into categories of time since quitting: less than five years, five to less than 10 years, 10 to less than 15 years, 15 to less than 20 years, and 20 or more years.

A more rapid decline in risk after quitting smoking compared with continuing to smoke was observed in the first five years for vascular diseases compared with other causes: 61% of the full benefit of quitting with regard to CHD death and 42% of the benefit of quitting with regard to cerebrovascular death was realized within five years of stopping smoking.

In contrast, it took much longer for the excess mortality risk associated with respiratory disease and smoking-related cancers to approach that of a never smoker: 20 years for COPD and 30 years for lung cancer.

Vascular disease mortality by time since quitting smoking among 104 519 women in the Nurses' Health Study followed up from 1980 to 2004a

Current smoker
Never smoker
Former smokers, years since quitting <5
Former smokers, years since quitting 5 to <10
Former smokers, years since quitting 10 to <15
Former smokers, years since quitting 15 to <20
Former smokers, years since quitting >20
p
Total CHD deaths, n (n=1385)
473
492
81
59
64
59
157
Multivariate HRb
1 (reference)
0.26
0.53
0.40
0.43
0.36
0.23
<0.001
Total CVD deaths, nc (n=734)
213
277
45
30
31
35
103
Multivariate HRb
1 (reference)
0.36
0.73
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.36
<0.001
Total vascular disease deaths, nc (n=2957)
907
1073
193
141
139
128
376
Multivariate HRb
1 (reference)
0.31
0.69
0.52
0.51
0.43
0.30
<0.001

a. All covariates including smoking updated until diagnosis of disease

b. Adjusted for age, follow-up period, history of hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, body-mass index, change in weight from age 18 to baseline (1980), alcohol intake, physical activity, previous use of oral contraceptives, postmenopausal estrogen therapy use and menopausal status, parental history of MI at age 65 years or younger, cigarettes smoked per day during the period prior to quitting, and age at starting smoking

c. Includes CHD and cerebrovascular disease

To download tables as slides, click on slide logo below

Kenfield concluded: "We want current smokers to stop smoking, and if we can't prevent people from starting to smoke at all, we at least need to postpone the age at which they start. Other studies show the earlier someone starts smoking, the higher his or her chances are of becoming a regular smoker and the less likely he or she is to quit."

Source
  1. Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Rosner BA, et al. Smoking and smoking cessation in relation to mortality in women. JAMA 2008; 299: 2037-2047.



Your comments
Vascular benefits of stopping smoking are rapid
# 1 of 8
May 7, 2008 04:18 (EDT)
becky christianson
Us nurses are GREAT guinea pigs....
this nurse study is just chock full of info if you take the time to pull it apart--just like the Framingham study! Melissa, do you think your council would reconsider their standings if they just read this article?

PS- how far is it between Glasgow and Paducah?
# 2 of 8
May 7, 2008 06:05 (EDT)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
Are you in Paducah?
Becky,
The crucifixion has begun here. Everyday someone comes up and discusses "the blogg". It's all the rage!! I've been chastised, informed of how unprofessional I am , etc. etc. Then again, it was those who I was blogging about who are really upset. I asked them to PLEASE kill the messenger, NOT THE MESSAGE! Though I plan to apologize for any feelings I've hurt, we all just need to get over it and move on to the business of addressing issues like the article you mentioned. We are NO LESS determined to help make Glasgow healthier and safer.
To answer your question about whether our city council would reconsider if they read this........nah, probably not, but then again, one never knows. I'll be happy to mention it!
I think we are about 3 hours away from Paducah. Glasgow is South Central Kentucky......fold a map in half and look toward the bottom next to Tennessee, that's us (or you can just look for the smoke signals....sorry, couldn't resist).
Melissa
# 3 of 8
May 8, 2008 02:39 (EDT)
becky christianson
YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOO BAD!
but I'll forgive you!

I really believe that the nurse's study and the framingham study will never be repeated, and were phenominal studies. Look at ALL the info that has been gleaned from both! and the info just keeps on being churned out. And both were done without the benefit of "supercomputers"!

I'm not in Paducah yet. I am a quilter-wannabe and I would love to go to that city's shows and sit at the feet of the great ones! Just thought if they were closer I could zip over and sit at your feet and learn! (of course, those feet would have to stop once in awhile to be able to sit under them!) ;-}

Becky
# 4 of 8
May 8, 2008 08:03 (EDT)
paul steiner
non smoker power...
This will amaze you...I did a spot for our local tv explaining about the harm of second hand smoke.
The local paper is totally in favor of smoking and said 'it was an issue of personal freedom and choice'! The strange part is that the tv and paper gave these guys a forum and said it was 'junk science' that supported non smokers.
How can you argue with 'junk science'...I never thought people were that gullible and simple but today I was wrong.
Long live the 'choice' to smoke?! I guess you never go broke underestimating the publics' intelligence!
# 5 of 8
May 8, 2008 09:52 (EDT)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
Keep it up man!
Paul,
Keep up the good work. It was public forums like those, over two decades now that have finally culminated in debate on the topic with so much wonderful support that we would never have had 20 years ago.
Melissa
# 6 of 8
May 14, 2008 08:33 (EDT)
paul steiner
ban banned
Well, the public spoke and voted down the ordinance prohibiting smoking in public places.
I guess they said it was 'unAmerican' to take away smokers rights' this way and I even had a CANCER physician's wife say this to me!!!
I'm actually resigning from the AHA committee; if people really don't want to take care of themselves why should I knock myself out...instead I'll be happy with all the extra business I'll get from the smokers!
I know it's cynical but what else are we supposed to do?
# 7 of 8
May 15, 2008 06:56 (EDT)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
Well, here it wasn't the public who voted
The ban was not voted down here. It was tabled, an important political difference. Also, it wasn't the public, it was 6 city council folks who are still living in the past. It will either require more education in the months following or debridement in the fall at the time of the election. Either way, the backlash has begun. Folks are very disgusted with this turn of events which will be very helpful toward electing some progressive thinkers to protect our citizens or convince our current council folks to vote on the side of health and safety.
Melissa
# 8 of 8
May 16, 2008 03:08 (EDT)
brent michael
canada
Is anyone attending the canadian cardiovascular meeting in Toronto; it looks very interesting.
Has anyone ever been to one of their meetings?

You have to be logged in to add a comment to this article
Login
Username 
Password 
  Forgot your password?
 
Remember me on this computer
 
Join theheart.org community
Five reasons to become a member of the most trusted source of cardiology news:
1Be part of the conversation in our blogs and discussion forum
2Share your thoughts on our news or educational programs
3Receive exclusive newsletters related to your field of interest
4Access unique continuous medical education content
5See and read what leaders have to say about cardiology today
It is free and it only takes five minutes to join!
 
button
Previews
Featured CME