Cited by 46

Smokeless tobacco (snus) and risk of heart failure: results from two Swedish cohorts

Arefalk, Gabriel, Hergens, Maria-Pia, Ingelsson, Erik, Ärnlöv, Johan, Michaëlsson, Karl, Lind, Lars, Ye, Weimin, Nyrén, Olof +2 more·2012·European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

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

Crossref · 10.1177/1741826711420003

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”
  • 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)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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