0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Cigarette Yield and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Smokers FREE

William H. Sauer, MD; Jesse A. Berlin, ScD; Brian L. Strom, MD, MPH; Carolyn Miles, MPH; Jeffrey L. Carson, MD; Stephen E. Kimmel, MD, MSCE
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division (Drs Sauer and Kimmel), Division of General Internal Medicine (Dr Strom), and the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology (Drs Berlin, Strom, and Kimmel and Ms Miles), University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia; Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick (Dr Carson).


Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(3):300-306. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.3.300.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Although cigarette smoking is a major risk factor for acute myocardial infarction (MI), cigarette tar yield has not been clearly demonstrated to affect MI risk.

Methods  A case-control study of first MI in smokers aged 30 through 65 years was conducted among 68 hospitals in an 8-county area during a 28-month period. Case subjects were smokers hospitalized at any of the area hospitals with a first MI. Approximately 4 community control smokers per case subject were randomly selected from the same geographic area using random digit dialing. Detailed data on smoking history and cigarette brand were collected.

Results  We identified 587 case subjects and 2685 controls who smoked cigarettes with known tar yields. After adjustment using multivariable logistic regression, the odds ratios (ORs) for subjects smoking medium- and high compared with low-tar-yield cigarettes were 1.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-2.87) and 2.21 (95% CI, 1.47-3.34), respectively. The adjusted OR increased as tar per day intake increased (P<.001 for the trend); compared with the lowest category of tar per day, the ORs (95% CIs) for increasing tar per day were 1.16 (0.83-1.62), 1.85 (1.35-2.52), 2.42 (1.54-3.78), and 2.50 (1.78-3.52). There was a similar trend of increasing ORs as tar per day increased in smokers of lower-yield cigarettes (P<.001 for the trend) and when low-yield cigarette smokers were excluded (P<.001 for the trend).

Conclusions  Smoking higher-yield cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of MI, and there is a dose-response relationship between total tar consumption per day and MI.

Figures in this Article

SINCE THE FIRST observational study linking tobacco and heart disease in 1940,1 numerous studies have confirmed the association between cigarette smoking and an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI).24 Smoking cessation dramatically decreases this risk to the level of nonsmokers within 3 years.5,6 Despite these compelling data and great efforts by public health officials to educate smokers, an estimated 1.1 billion people worldwide continue to smoke.7 Regulatory efforts to limit the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes have been proposed in many countries,8 based primarily on the effects of higher cigarette yield on the risk of malignancy912 and mortality from some smoking-related diseases.13,14 Several countries have recently adopted or proposed legislation that limits the amount of tar and nicotine in cigarettes,8,15,16 and the European Union, which already has a 12-mg tar limit, recently passed legislation that will reduce the upper limit of tar to 10 mg.17 Similar regulations have not been enacted in the United States.

While reductions in cigarette yield (eg, reductions in nicotine, carbon monoxide, and tar) may reduce the risk of some smoking-related malignancies,914 the effects on MI are unknown. Because the absolute increase in risk of MI from cigarette smoking is greater than that for lung cancer,2 a better understanding of the effects of cigarette yield on MI risk is critically important to worldwide regulatory efforts. Although prior investigations have failed to identify a clear difference in MI risk by cigarette yield,12,1821 most of these studies were performed more than a decade ago, before low-tar cigarettes became popular, and therefore may have had limited ability to detect an effect of higher vs lower-yield cigarettes.1820 The only study to suggest an increase in the occurrence of nonfatal MI from higher tar-yield cigarettes did not specifically include data for smokers of the lowest-yield cigarettes.21 Therefore, the specific aims of this case-control study were to determine if smoking higher-yield cigarettes is associated with an increased risk of first nonfatal MI and to examine the contribution of tar yield to MI risk.

SOURCE POPULATION

We performed a case-control study of MI in smokers from an 8-county region of eastern Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Montgomery, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Camden, Gloucester, and Burlington counties). The primary objective of the study was to examine the effect of nicotine patch exposure and the risk of MI in smokers.22 This study also collected detailed information on smoking habits and therefore permitted a secondary post hoc evaluation of the role of tar yield in MI.

IDENTIFICATION AND DEFINITION OF CASE SUBJECTS

Case subjects were between the ages of 30 and 65 years with a first MI who were hospitalized at any of the 68 acute care hospitals in the 8-county region from September 1995 through December 31, 1997. To maximize the completeness of case subject identification, hospital-specific systems of case subject ascertainment were developed, and the person responsible for case subject ascertainment at each hospital was contacted on at least a monthly basis.

Acute MI was defined using the criteria from the Minnesota Heart Survey.23 Of potentially eligible subjects (N = 778), 84% had their medical records reviewed for confirmation of their MI, and 85% had MIs that met the study criteria. Given this high rate of confirmation, the 140 eligible subjects for whom charts were not available are included in the primary analyses; a separate analysis excluded these subjects.

Subjects were excluded if (1) they were not current smokers (defined as abstinence from cigarettes for at least 1 week prior to their MI); (2) they had the MI as a complication of a hospitalization for a different condition (eg, postoperatively); (3) they had a prior MI; (4) they were pregnant or currently nursing (an exclusion criterion used in the primary data set22); (5) they did not have telephones or did not speak English; (6) they did not live in 1 of the 8 counties; or (7) the brand of cigarette smoked by the participant was not tested by the Federal Trade Commission.

The participation rate among eligible case subjects was 68%; among all potential case subjects (known eligible and potentially eligible), participation was estimated to be 61%.24 The charts of 349 nonparticipant eligible case subjects (79% of the known eligible nonparticipants) were reviewed to collect basic demographic information (age, sex, and insurance). The only difference between participants and nonparticipants was insurance status (P<.01), with nonparticipants more likely to be receiving medical assistance (13.1% vs 5.1%).22

IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF CONTROLS

Approximately 4 community control subjects were selected for each case subject using a modification of the Waksberg random digit dialing method.25 Each randomly derived telephone number was dialed up to 9 times (3 attempts each during the day, evening, and weekend) to maximize participation and avoid the bias of using daytime only calls. Any household with a subject who refused to participate received up to 2 follow-up "conversion" telephone calls. If there was more than 1 eligible person living in a single household, one was chosen at random. Controls were between the ages of 30 and 65 years and were subject to the same exclusion criteria as case subjects.

The participation rate among known eligible controls was 51%. A study was performed to estimate the use of nicotine patches (one marker of trying to quit smoking) among nonparticipants. Of the 214 subjects who refused to participate, 85 agreed to answer 2 questions, which were not specified until the subject agreed, about patch use. Two (2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3%-8.2%) of the 85 had used a nicotine patch within the prior week compared with 1.0% (95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%) of participant controls.22

DATA COLLECTION

Exposure and covariate data were collected using a structured telephone interview for both case subjects and controls. The study hypothesis was not revealed to subjects at any time. To maximize the validity of exposure information, case subjects were interviewed only if they could be reached within 6 months of their MI. Controls were also interviewed only within 6 months of being identified to prevent the potential selection bias that could result if subjects who could not be reached within this time frame differed from those who could. Detailed information was obtained regarding tobacco use (including most recent brand of cigarette smoked, frequency and duration of smoking, and prior attempts to quit) and other clinical and demographic characteristics. All data were collected relative to the index date: the date of MI for case subjects and the date of the telephone interview for controls.

CIGARETTE YIELD CLASSIFICATION

Tar yield was used as a measure of cigarette yield because (1) it is directly proportional to the amount of nicotine, carbon monoxide, and other potentially toxic substances produced by a cigarette; (2) it is the measure being used for regulatory limitations in many countries8,1517; and (3) it is the basis for the labeling of cigarettes as ultralight, light, or regular. The tar yield of each brand of cigarettes smoked by patients was determined from data published by the Federal Trade Commission.26 From these data, 3 categories of cigarettes (low tar, medium tar, and high tar) were derived, which correspond to ultralight (≤6 mg of tar), light (7-12 mg), and regular (>12 mg). A measure of tar consumed per day also was calculated for each participant by multiplying the tar yield of the cigarette smoked by the quantity of cigarettes smoked per day during the week prior to the index date. Quintiles were created to ensure an equal number of control group participants in each category.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The odds ratio (OR) was used to estimate the relative risk of MI from smoking higher-yield cigarettes vs lowest-yield cigarettes. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to control for possible confounding. The method of Hosmer and Lemeshow27 demonstrated good fit for all models (P>.05). The multivariable model included variables that are known risk factors for MI and any potential confounding variable that changed the crude OR by more than 10% after adjustment.28 These covariates included sociodemographic and lifestyle traits (age, sex, race, any degree of exercise within the past year, vitamin use, education, years smoking, and number of cigarettes smoked per day during the index week) and clinical characteristics (body mass index; history of coronary disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or hypercholesterolemia; and any family history of coronary disease). Other potential confounding variables tested (total household income, marital status, caffeine and alcohol consumption, type of insurance, prior attempts to quit, use of any nicotine replacement therapy, aspirin or β-blocker use, patient concerns for MI, and a validated physical activity score29) did not significantly affect any of the tar-yield ORs and were therefore not included.

Dose-response relationships were tested by including the tar variables, both as continuous and categorical variables, in multivariable models. Additional quadratic terms were included to test for nonlinearity. Separate analyses using nicotine or carbon monoxide instead of tar as a marker for cigarette yield produced similar results. Analyses including any subject who smoked within the last year, using the lifetime average smoking frequency as a covariate and excluding the 140 case subjects with unverified MI, were performed with no meaningful change in the results. In addition, interactions were tested between each variable and tar yields; none was significant (P>.10). Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical program (version 9.0, SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill), and statistical significance was defined as a 2-sided P value lower than .05.

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY PARTICIPANTS

A total of 609 eligible case subjects and 2739 eligible controls were identified. Of these, 22 case subjects and 54 controls were excluded because they smoked cigarettes with unknown tar yields. The characteristics of smokers in the control group, listed by type of cigarette smoked, are given in Table 1.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Smokers in the Control Group*
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CIGARETTE TYPE AND MI

In the unadjusted analysis, smokers of medium- and high-yield cigarettes had a higher OR for MI than low-yield smokers (Table 2). The confounding variables that increased the ORs after adjustment were age, quantity smoked per day, and history of diabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia. The confounders that decreased the ORs after adjustment were vitamin use, education, and exercise. After adjustment for all confounders, the ORs increased for smokers of medium and high-yield cigarettes, and the associations remained significant (Table 2). When we controlled for all sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, the ORs for smokers of medium- and high-yield cigarettes increased relative to the unadjusted results: 1.61 (95% CI, 1.09-2.39) and 2.00 (95% CI, 1.38-2.91), respectively. When we controlled for all clinical factors, the ORs also increased (medium-yield OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.29-2.95; high-yield OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.81-3.92).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Association Between Cigarette Type and Myocardial Infarction
DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAR AND MI
Tar Yield per Cigarette

The association between tar yield per cigarette (using quintiles) and MI is given in Table 3. Compared with the lowest group (≤5 mg tar), the multivariable-adjusted ORs for each of the categories of tar were sequentially higher (P<.001 for the trend). When tar yield was treated as a continuous variable, the estimated risk for MI increased by 4% for each 1-mg increase in tar yield (adjusted OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .002). In addition to this linear association, there was a nonlinear relationship for continuous tar (adjusted for quadratic term, β = −0.003; SE = 0.0015; P = .05).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Association Between Tar Yield per Cigarette and Myocardial Infarction
Tar Dose Per Day

There was a significant increase in ORs with increasing tar consumption per day within each subgroup of cigarette type (Figure 1). This trend was also seen in the unadjusted analysis for each individual subgroup of smokers (low, P = .002; medium, P<.001; high, P<.001). Multivariable adjustment did not alter the results for smokers of medium-tar (P = .005) or high-tar (P = .01) cigarettes; however, we could not fit reliable multivariable models for smokers of low-tar cigarettes because of the small number of exposed individuals in the higher-tar-per-day categories within this group.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Multivariable odds ratios were adjusted for the same confounding variables listed in Table 2, excluding cigarettes smoked per day. The reference group comprises those subjects who consume less than 150 mg of tar per day. P = .001 for the trend: P = .001 for all tar levels; P <.001 for the category excluding low-tar cigarettes; P<.001 for the category excluding high-tar cigarettes; and P<.001 for high-tar cigarettes only. Brackets indicate 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The asterisk indicates that the upper limit of the 95% CI for the group consuming more than 450 mg of tar per day in the category excluding high-tar cigarette smokers is 17.9.

Graphic Jump Location
STUDY RESULTS

Using tar as a marker for cigarette yield, the results of this study show that smoking higher-yield cigarettes is associated with an increase in the odds of MI. In addition, increasing amounts of tar inhaled per day was associated with increased risk. Although a dose-response relationship between smoking and risk for MI has been clearly demonstrated in previous studies,2,4 this relationship was only explained in terms of the number of cigarettes smoked per day. The results of our study demonstrate that, among people smoking the same number of cigarettes per day, tar yield is an independent risk factor for MI, and that people who consume more tar, regardless of cigarette type, have an increased risk for MI.

PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS OF TAR YIELD AND MI

There are relatively few, and somewhat contradictory, epidemiological data on the association between tar and MI. One large case-control study conducted in England concluded that smokers of medium-tar cigarettes (≥10 mg, the highest tar yield studied) had modestly increased (10%) odds for MI when compared with smokers of low-tar cigarettes (≥10 mg).21 Our study demonstrates not only a greater increase in risk from greater than 10-mg tar yield, but also an increased risk from even a 6- to 10-mg tar yield. The lesser OR in the previous study21 may have resulted from the selection of controls who were relatives of the case subjects. These controls may have been more likely to smoke similar tar-yield cigarettes because of their relationship, potentially biasing the results toward the null. In addition, because this study,21 as well as other European studies,12,18 did not specifically include data on the lowest-yield cigarettes (<6 mg), the effects of lower-yield cigarettes could not be studied.

Two prior studies examining yield of American cigarettes did not demonstrate an association between increasing yields of nicotine or carbon monoxide and MI19,20 relative to nonsmokers. Although tar was not specifically studied, the results for tar yield would be expected to be related to nicotine and carbon monoxide, as the tar yield is proportional to these compounds in all cigarettes. The apparent discrepancy with our study could be explained by the use of hospital-based controls and of nonsmokers as the reference group in the prior studies.19,20 Hospitalized patients may not accurately reflect the general population from which our case subjects were drawn, and the comparison with those who have never smoked may have diminished any relative dose-response relationship that cigarette yield has among smokers. In addition, these studies were conducted more than 10 years ago, when low-tar cigarettes were only beginning to gain popularity. Most of the smokers of the lowest-yield cigarettes were likely to have recently switched to these brands, perhaps preventing a clear distinction from smokers of higher-yield cigarettes.

POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS

The potential limitations of observational research and secondary post hoc analyses must be considered in interpreting the results of this study. Because this study only included patients with nonfatal MI, we cannot draw conclusions regarding fatal MIs. A false association could be created if smokers of lower-yield cigarettes were more likely to develop silent MI or sudden death after an MI. However, there are no data to suggest that lower-yield cigarettes would increase the likelihood of developing either of these clinical outcomes, and thus this potential bias is unlikely.

A low participation rate could have created a false association if nonparticipant controls were more likely to smoke higher-yield cigarettes, or if nonparticipant case subjects were more likely to smoke lower-yield cigarettes, than participants. Although response bias is difficult to assess, the information that was obtained from nonparticipant controls and case subjects suggests that this bias is unlikely. Because the prevalence of nicotine patch use among nonparticipant controls seemed to be higher than that of participants (although this could be a chance finding), nonparticipant controls may have been more likely to attempt to quit, a characteristic associated with smokers of lower-yield cigarettes in our data. In addition, although insurance status of nonparticipant controls is unknown, nonparticipant case subjects were more likely to be receiving medical assistance, a characteristic that was strongly associated with smoking higher-yield cigarettes in our study. These characteristics of nonparticipants would falsely diminish an association between tar yield and MI.

Uncontrolled confounding (eg, lifestyle factors and depression) is another potential limitation of our study. It has been postulated that the low-yield-cigarette smoking population is likely to choose this type of cigarette as a way to minimize the damaging health consequences of smoking30 and that the marketing of low-tar cigarettes targets more educated and health-conscious smokers.31 However, adjustment for numerous markers of low-risk individuals (eg, vitamin use, education, exercise) did not alter the study results. In addition, low-yield smokers may have been at higher, rather than lower, risk because they tended to have more traditional risk factors for MI. In fact, adjustment for all measured potential confounders increased, rather than decreased, the ORs for smokers of medium-tar and high-tar cigarettes. In addition, several subanalyses, including those that excluded smokers of low- and medium-yield cigarettes, continued to demonstrate a clear association between increasing tar and MI. Therefore, uncontrolled confounding is unlikely to have explained the study results.

The inability to accurately measure the amount of tar exposure of an individual smoker could have affected our results in several ways. First, we only collected information on the most recent brand of cigarette. However, we believe it is more likely that high-yield smokers would have switched to low-yield brands, diminishing the association between tar and MI. Second, individual smoking behavior can alter the delivery of the proposed dose of tar,32 especially among those who switch to lower-yield cigarettes but titrate the amount of tar delivered through "vent-blocking" and other smoking behavior modifications.3335 This may be of greater importance right after switching than with longer-term use.3539 Regardless, individual smoking behavior that increased actual exposure to tar in the lower-yield groups, relative to what was predicted, would have biased our results toward the null. Finally, smokers may have changed their quantity of smoking in the index week; however, calculations of tar per day using lifetime averages did not alter the results.

This study demonstrated a significant association between smoking higher-yield cigarettes and first nonfatal MI, independent of the quantity of cigarettes smoked, and a consistent dose-response relationship between tar intake per day and MI, regardless of the type of cigarette smoked. Tar yields above 10 mg per cigarette, and even above 6 mg, were associated with a significant increase in MI. Therefore, legislation aimed at reducing the amount of tar in cigarettes could have additional benefits, above and beyond reducing smoking-related cancers and other morbidities. Of course, smoking cessation should remain the goal of all smokers, as it is the only way to abolish the increased risk of MI from smoking,5,6 even among smokers of low-yield cigarettes.19,20

Accepted for publication April 14, 2001.

This study was supported by grants from Aventis Pharmaceuticals (formerly Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc), Parsippany, NJ; Novartis Consumer Health, Summit, NJ; and McNeil Consumer Products Co, Fort Washington, Pa.

Advisory Board Members

Robert Wallace, MD, chair: The University of Iowa, Iowa City. Neal L. Benowitz, MD: University of California, San Francisco. Michael Criqui, MD, MPH: University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla. Paul D. Stolley, MD, MPH: University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. Stephen Walter, PhD: McMaster University Health Sciences Center, Hamilton, Ontario.

Participating Hospitals and Sponsors

Abington Memorial Hospital, Abington, Pa: James Robertson, MD. Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pa: Morris N. Kotler, MD. Allegheny University Hospitals, Bucks County, Warminster, Pa: David Waldstein, MD. Allegheny University Hospitals, City Ave, Philadelphia, Pa: Albert F. D'Alonzo, DO. Allegheny University Hospitals, Elkins Park, Jenkintown, Pa: Gilbert Grossman, MD. Allegheny University Hospitals, Graduate, Philadelphia, Pa: Robert Lester, MD. Allegheny University Hospitals, Hahnemann, Philadelphia: William G. Kussmaul, MD. Allegheny University Hospitals, Medical College of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Steven Meister, MD. Allegheny University Hospitals, Parkview, Philadelphia: David Masiak, DO. Brandywine Hospital, Thorndale, Pa: Arthur B. Hodess, MD. Bryn Mawr Hospital, Bryn Mawr, Pa: Jack Martin, MD. Chester County Hospital, West Chester, Pa: Azam Husain, MD. Chestnut Hill Hospital, Philadelphia: Raymond Rodriguez, MD. Cooper Hospital–University Medical Center, Camden, NJ: William H. Matthai, Jr, MD. Crozer Chester Medical Center, Upland, Pa: R. David Mishalove, MD. Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, NJ: Charles Dennis, MD. Delaware County Memorial Hospital, Drexel Hill, Pa: William Beckwith, MD. Delaware Valley Medical Center, Langhorne, Pa: Morris I. Rossman, DO. Doylestown Hospital, Doylestown, Pa: James J. Kmetzo, MD. Episcopal Heart Institute, Philadelphia: Nirmal De, MD. Frankford Hospital,Torresdale and Frankford Campus, Philadelphia: Robert Krause, MD. Germantown Hospital and Medical Center, Philadelphia: Frank S. James, MD. Grand View Hospital, Sellersville, Pa: Paul Hermany, MD. Holy Redeemer Hospital, Meadowbrook, Pa: William Haaz, MD. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Evan Loh, MD. Jeanes Hospital, Philadelphia: Richard A. Narvaez, MD. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Jenkintown, Pa: Gilbert Grossman, MD. Kennedy Memorial Hospital–Stratford, Voorhees, NJ: Louis Papa, DO. Kennedy Memorial Hospital–Washington Township, Sewell, NJ: Mario Maiese, DO. Kennedy Memorial Hospital–Cherry Hill, Cherry Hill, NJ: Norman P. Silvers, MD. Lankenau Hospital, Wynnewood, Pa: Peter R. Kowey, MD. Lower Bucks Hospital, Langhorne, Pa: Jonathan Gold, MD. Memorial Hospital of Burlington County, Mt Laurel, NJ: Steven Lederman, MD. Mercy Catholic Medical Centers Fitzgerald/Misericordia, Philadelphia: Clifford E. Schott, Jr, MD. Mercy Haverford, Broomall, Pa: Julian L. Gladstone, MD. Methodist Hospital, Philadelphia: David Elbaum, DO. Montgomery Hospital, Norristown, Pa: Edward Buonocore, MD. Nazareth Hospital, Philadelphia: Richard Vassallo, MD. Neumann Medical Center, Philadelphia: Nirmal De, MD. North Penn Hospital, Lansdale, Pa: Joseph Kraynak, MD. North Philadelphia Health System–St Joseph's Hospital, Philadelphia: David Knox, MD. Northeastern Hospital, Philadelphia: Donald L. Kahn, MD. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Voorhees, NJ: Donald W. Orth, MD. Paoli Memorial Hospital, Paoli, Pa: Elliot M. Gerber, MD. Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia: John U. Doherty, MD. Phoenixville Hospital, Phoenixville, Pa: Kathleen E. Magness, MD. Pottstown Memorial Medical Center, Pottstown, Pa: Joseph Krantzler, MD. Presbyterian Medical Center of Philadelphia, Philadelphia: Stephen E. Kimmel, MD. Quakertown Community Hospital, Quakertown, Pa: Ric Baxter, MD. Rancocas Hospital, Willingboro, NJ: Ivan Rudolph, MD. Riddle Memorial Hospital, Media, Pa: Vsevolod Kohutiak, MD. Roxborough Memorial Hospital, Philadelphia: Michael DeAngelis, MD. Southern Chester County Medical Center, West Grove, Pa: David Callahan, DO. Springfield Hospital, Springfield, Pa: Dominic Pisano, DO. St Agnes Medical Center, Philadelphia: Pasquale Procacci, MD. St Mary's Medical Center, Levittown, Pa: Rajnikant Shah, MD. Suburban General Hospital, Norristown, Pa: John Fornace, DO. Taylor Hospital, Ridley Park, Pa: Roger Weiner, MD. Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia: David Wiener, MD. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia: Perry Weinstock, MD. Underwood–Memorial Hospital, Woodbury, NJ: John S. Owens, MD. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia: Lawrence H. Frame, MD. West Jersey Hospital–Berlin, Berlin, NJ: Richard Perlman, MD, PhD. West Jersey Hospital–Camden, Camden, NJ: Richard Perlman, MD, PhD. West Jersey Hospital–Marlton, Marlton, NJ: Richard Perlman, MD, PhD. West Jersey Hospital–Voorhees, Voorhees, NJ: Richard Perlman, MD, PhD.

Corresponding author: Stephen E. Kimmel, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 717 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021 (e-mail: skimmel@cceb.med.upenn.edu).

English  JPWillius  FABerkson  J Tobacco and coronary disease. JAMA. 1940;1151327- 1329
Doll  RPeto  R Mortality in relation to smoking: 20 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ. 1976;21525- 1536
Centers for Disease Control, Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress—a Report of the Surgeon General.  Rockville, Md US Dept Health and Human Services, Public Health Service1989;CDC publication 89- 8411
Willett  WCGreen  AStampfer  MJ  et al.  Relative and absolute excess risks of coronary heart disease among women who smoke cigarettes. N Engl J Med. 1987;3171303- 1309
Rosenberg  LKaufman  DWHelmrich  SPShapiro  S The risk of myocardial infarction after quitting smoking in men under 55 years of age. N Engl J Med. 1985;3131511- 1515
Rosenberg  LPalmer  JRShapiro  S Decline in the risk of myocardial infarction among women who stop smoking. N Engl J Med. 1990;322213- 217
Brown  P WHO agrees measures [sic] to stop global spread of tobacco use. BMJ. 1999;3181437
Gray  N The global cigarette: 12 mg of tar and 1 mg of nicotine by 2000 [editorial]. BMJ. 1996;3131348
Kaufman  DWPalmer  JRRosenberg  LStolley  PWarshauer  EShapiro  S Tar content of cigarettes in relation to lung cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129703- 711
Lubin  JHBlot  WJBerrino  F  et al.  Patterns of lung cancer risk according to type of cigarette smoked. Int J Cancer. 1984;33569- 576
Vutuc  CKunze  M Tar yield of cigarettes and male lung cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1983;71435- 437
Petitti  DBFriedman  GD Cardiovascular and other diseases in smokers of low-yield cigarettes. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38581- 588
Hammond  ECGarfinkel  LSeidman  HLew  EA Tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke in relation to death rates. Environ Res. 1976;12263- 274
Tang  JLMorris  JKWald  NJHole  DShipley  MTunstall-Pedoe  H Mortality in relation to tar yield of cigarettes: a prospective study of four cohorts. BMJ. 1995;3111530- 1533
Neilan  T World briefing: anti-tobacco moves. New York Times. December7 1999;A12
FT Asia Intelligence Wire, Antismoking campaigners face reignited fight over tar, nicotine. Jakarta Post. December 17 1999;
Drozdiak  W Tough anti-smoking measures approved for Europe. Washington Post. May16 2001;A17
Negri  EFranzosi  MGLa Vecchia  CSantoro  LNobili  ATognoni  G Tar yield of cigarettes and risk of acute myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1993;3061567- 1570
Kaufman  DWHelmrich  SPRosenberg  LMiettinen  OSShapiro  S Nicotine and carbon monoxide content of cigarette smoke and the risk of myocardial infarction in young men. N Engl J Med. 1983;308409- 413
Palmer  JRRosenberg  LShapiro  S "Low-yield" cigarettes and the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction in women. N Engl J Med. 1989;3201569- 1573
Parish  SCollins  RPeto  R  et al. for the International Studies of Infarct Survival (ISIS) Collaborators, Cigarette smoking, tar yields, and nonfatal myocardial infarction: 14 000 cases and 32 000 controls in the United Kingdom. BMJ. 1995;311471- 477
Kimmel  SEBerlin  JAMiles  CJaskowiak  JCarson  JStrom  BL Risk of myocardial infarction among nicotine patch users. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;371297- 1302
Mascioli  SRJacobs  DRJKottke  TE Diagnostic criteria for hospitalized acute myocardial infarction: the Minnesota experience. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;1876- 83
Frey  JH Comparing survey methods. Survey Research by Telephone. Beverly Hills, Calif Sage Publications Inc1989;33- 77
Waksberg  J Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J Am Stat Assoc. 1978;7340- 46
Not Available, Report of Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke From 1206 Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes Tested Between 1994 and 1997.  Washington, DC Federal Trade Commission1998;
Hosmer  DWLemeshow  S Applied Logistic Regression.  New York, NY Wiley1989;140- 145
Mickey  RMGreenland  S The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129125- 137
Baecke  JABurema  JFrijters  JE A short questionnaire for the measurement of habitual physical activity in epidemiological studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982;36936- 942
Cohen  JB Smokers' knowledge and understanding of advertised tar numbers: health policy implications. Am J Public Health. 1996;8618- 24
Giovino  GATomar  SLReddy  MN  et al.  Attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about low-yield cigarettes among adolescents and adults. The Federal Trade Commission Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Levels in Cigarettes Bethesda, Md National Cancer Institute1996;Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph.739- 57
Kozlowski  LT Tar and nicotine delivery: what a difference a puff makes. JAMA. 1981;245158- 159
Kozlowski  LTPope  MALux  JE Prevalence of the misuse of ultra-low-tar cigarettes by blocking filter vents. Am J Public Health. 1988;78694- 695
Benowitz  NLHall  SHHerning  RIJacob  PJones  RTOsman  AL Smokers of low-yield cigarettes do not consume less nicotine. N Engl J Med. 1983;309139- 142
Scherer  G Smoking behavior and compensation: a review of the literature. Psychopharmacology. 1999;1451- 20
Guyatt  ARKirkham  AJTMariner  DCBaldry  AGCummin  G Long-term effects of switching to cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine yields. Psychopharmacology. 1989;9980- 86
Cornelius  JLBenowitz  NL Spontaneous cigarette brand switching: consequences for nicotine and carbon monoxide exposure. Am J Public Health. 1987;781191- 1194
Zacny  JPStitzer  ML Cigarette brand switching: effects in smoke exposure and smoking behavior. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1988;246619- 627
Frost  CFullerton  FMStephen  AM  et al.  The tar reduction study: randomised trial of the effect of cigarette tar yield reduction on compensatory smoking. Thorax. 1995;501038- 1043

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Multivariable odds ratios were adjusted for the same confounding variables listed in Table 2, excluding cigarettes smoked per day. The reference group comprises those subjects who consume less than 150 mg of tar per day. P = .001 for the trend: P = .001 for all tar levels; P <.001 for the category excluding low-tar cigarettes; P<.001 for the category excluding high-tar cigarettes; and P<.001 for high-tar cigarettes only. Brackets indicate 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The asterisk indicates that the upper limit of the 95% CI for the group consuming more than 450 mg of tar per day in the category excluding high-tar cigarette smokers is 17.9.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Smokers in the Control Group*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Association Between Cigarette Type and Myocardial Infarction
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Association Between Tar Yield per Cigarette and Myocardial Infarction

References

English  JPWillius  FABerkson  J Tobacco and coronary disease. JAMA. 1940;1151327- 1329
Doll  RPeto  R Mortality in relation to smoking: 20 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ. 1976;21525- 1536
Centers for Disease Control, Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress—a Report of the Surgeon General.  Rockville, Md US Dept Health and Human Services, Public Health Service1989;CDC publication 89- 8411
Willett  WCGreen  AStampfer  MJ  et al.  Relative and absolute excess risks of coronary heart disease among women who smoke cigarettes. N Engl J Med. 1987;3171303- 1309
Rosenberg  LKaufman  DWHelmrich  SPShapiro  S The risk of myocardial infarction after quitting smoking in men under 55 years of age. N Engl J Med. 1985;3131511- 1515
Rosenberg  LPalmer  JRShapiro  S Decline in the risk of myocardial infarction among women who stop smoking. N Engl J Med. 1990;322213- 217
Brown  P WHO agrees measures [sic] to stop global spread of tobacco use. BMJ. 1999;3181437
Gray  N The global cigarette: 12 mg of tar and 1 mg of nicotine by 2000 [editorial]. BMJ. 1996;3131348
Kaufman  DWPalmer  JRRosenberg  LStolley  PWarshauer  EShapiro  S Tar content of cigarettes in relation to lung cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129703- 711
Lubin  JHBlot  WJBerrino  F  et al.  Patterns of lung cancer risk according to type of cigarette smoked. Int J Cancer. 1984;33569- 576
Vutuc  CKunze  M Tar yield of cigarettes and male lung cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1983;71435- 437
Petitti  DBFriedman  GD Cardiovascular and other diseases in smokers of low-yield cigarettes. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38581- 588
Hammond  ECGarfinkel  LSeidman  HLew  EA Tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke in relation to death rates. Environ Res. 1976;12263- 274
Tang  JLMorris  JKWald  NJHole  DShipley  MTunstall-Pedoe  H Mortality in relation to tar yield of cigarettes: a prospective study of four cohorts. BMJ. 1995;3111530- 1533
Neilan  T World briefing: anti-tobacco moves. New York Times. December7 1999;A12
FT Asia Intelligence Wire, Antismoking campaigners face reignited fight over tar, nicotine. Jakarta Post. December 17 1999;
Drozdiak  W Tough anti-smoking measures approved for Europe. Washington Post. May16 2001;A17
Negri  EFranzosi  MGLa Vecchia  CSantoro  LNobili  ATognoni  G Tar yield of cigarettes and risk of acute myocardial infarction. BMJ. 1993;3061567- 1570
Kaufman  DWHelmrich  SPRosenberg  LMiettinen  OSShapiro  S Nicotine and carbon monoxide content of cigarette smoke and the risk of myocardial infarction in young men. N Engl J Med. 1983;308409- 413
Palmer  JRRosenberg  LShapiro  S "Low-yield" cigarettes and the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction in women. N Engl J Med. 1989;3201569- 1573
Parish  SCollins  RPeto  R  et al. for the International Studies of Infarct Survival (ISIS) Collaborators, Cigarette smoking, tar yields, and nonfatal myocardial infarction: 14 000 cases and 32 000 controls in the United Kingdom. BMJ. 1995;311471- 477
Kimmel  SEBerlin  JAMiles  CJaskowiak  JCarson  JStrom  BL Risk of myocardial infarction among nicotine patch users. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;371297- 1302
Mascioli  SRJacobs  DRJKottke  TE Diagnostic criteria for hospitalized acute myocardial infarction: the Minnesota experience. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;1876- 83
Frey  JH Comparing survey methods. Survey Research by Telephone. Beverly Hills, Calif Sage Publications Inc1989;33- 77
Waksberg  J Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J Am Stat Assoc. 1978;7340- 46
Not Available, Report of Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide of the Smoke From 1206 Varieties of Domestic Cigarettes Tested Between 1994 and 1997.  Washington, DC Federal Trade Commission1998;
Hosmer  DWLemeshow  S Applied Logistic Regression.  New York, NY Wiley1989;140- 145
Mickey  RMGreenland  S The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129125- 137
Baecke  JABurema  JFrijters  JE A short questionnaire for the measurement of habitual physical activity in epidemiological studies. Am J Clin Nutr. 1982;36936- 942
Cohen  JB Smokers' knowledge and understanding of advertised tar numbers: health policy implications. Am J Public Health. 1996;8618- 24
Giovino  GATomar  SLReddy  MN  et al.  Attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about low-yield cigarettes among adolescents and adults. The Federal Trade Commission Test Method for Determining Tar, Nicotine, and Carbon Monoxide Levels in Cigarettes Bethesda, Md National Cancer Institute1996;Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph.739- 57
Kozlowski  LT Tar and nicotine delivery: what a difference a puff makes. JAMA. 1981;245158- 159
Kozlowski  LTPope  MALux  JE Prevalence of the misuse of ultra-low-tar cigarettes by blocking filter vents. Am J Public Health. 1988;78694- 695
Benowitz  NLHall  SHHerning  RIJacob  PJones  RTOsman  AL Smokers of low-yield cigarettes do not consume less nicotine. N Engl J Med. 1983;309139- 142
Scherer  G Smoking behavior and compensation: a review of the literature. Psychopharmacology. 1999;1451- 20
Guyatt  ARKirkham  AJTMariner  DCBaldry  AGCummin  G Long-term effects of switching to cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine yields. Psychopharmacology. 1989;9980- 86
Cornelius  JLBenowitz  NL Spontaneous cigarette brand switching: consequences for nicotine and carbon monoxide exposure. Am J Public Health. 1987;781191- 1194
Zacny  JPStitzer  ML Cigarette brand switching: effects in smoke exposure and smoking behavior. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1988;246619- 627
Frost  CFullerton  FMStephen  AM  et al.  The tar reduction study: randomised trial of the effect of cigarette tar yield reduction on compensatory smoking. Thorax. 1995;501038- 1043

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 9

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Resolution

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Scenario