Smokeless tobacco (snus) and risk of heart failure: results from two Swedish cohorts
Abstract
Background Oral moist snuff (snus) is discussed as a safer alternative to smoking, and its use is increasing. Based on its documented effect on blood pressure, we hypothesized that use of snus increases the risk of heart failure. Design Two independent Swedish prospective cohorts; the Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men (ULSAM), a community-based sample of 1076 elderly men, and the Construction Workers Cohort (CWC), a sample of 118,425 never-smoking male construction workers. Methods Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate possible associations of snus use with risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure. Results In ULSAM, 95 men were hospitalized for heart failure, during a median follow up of 8.9 years. In a model adjusted for established risk factors including past and present smoking exposure, current snus use was associated with a higher risk of heart failure [hazard ratio (HR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-4.22] relative to non-use. Snus use was particularly associated with risk of non-ischaemic heart failure (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.12-5.82). In CWC, 545 men were hospitalized for heart failure, during a median follow up of 18 years. In multivariable-adjusted models, current snus use was moderately associated with a higher risk of heart failure (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.00-1.64) and non-ischaemic heart failure (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.97-1.68) relative to never tobacco use. Conclusion Data from two independent cohorts suggest that use of snus may be as…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Current snus use is associated with increased risk of non-ischemic heart failure in the ULSAM cohort (HR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.12-5.82) and in the construction workers cohort (HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.97-1.68) compared to never-users.
“non-ischemic heart failure (HR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.12-5.82for ULSAM cohort; HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.97-1.68 for CWC) compared to never-users (Arefalk et al. 2012).”
From Comparison of the Health Effects Associated with the Use of Snus and Tobacco-Free Oral Nicotine Pouches: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as Arefalk et al. 2012
Current snus use is associated with increased risk of heart failure in the ULSAM cohort (HR = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03-4.22) and in the construction workers cohort (HR = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.00-1.64) compared to never-users.
“association of current snus use with increased risk of heart failure (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.08, 95% CI: 1.03-4.22for Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men (ULSAM) cohort; HR = 1.28; 95% CI: 1.00-1.64for construction workers cohort (CWC)”
From Comparison of the Health Effects Associated with the Use of Snus and Tobacco-Free Oral Nicotine Pouches: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as Arefalk et al. 2012
Cites
The progression from hypertension to congestive heart failure
Levy, D. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530440037034 · Cited by 2,155 · see citing works
Boffetta, P., & Straif, K. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b3060 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rennard, S. I., & Daughton, D. M. (2014) · Clinics in Chest Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ccm.2013.11.002 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Kopa-Stojak, P. N., & Pawliczak, R. (2026) · Exposure and Health · doi:10.1007/s12403-026-00812-w
- Authors
- Arefalk, G., Hergens, M.-P., Ingelsson, E., Ärnlöv, J., Michaëlsson, K., Lind, L., Ye, W., Nyrén, O., Lambe, M., & Sundström, J.
- Venue
- European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-08-09
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1120-1127
- ISSN
- 2047-4873
- 2047-4881
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review