Table 2.

Main features of included systematic reviews

First author (year)	Exposure/intervention	Comparison	Findings
Farsalinos (2014)	EVC with nicotine, EVC without nicotine	Nihil, NRT, sham, TCC	EVC are a less harmful alternative to TCC and significant health benefits are expected in smokers who switch from TCC to EVC.
Garcia (2020)	EVC with nicotine, EVC without nicotine	Nihil, sham, TCC	EVC acutely increase HR and BP but less than TCC. Nicotine but not non-nicotine constituents in EVC aerosol were responsible for the sympathoexcitatory effects. EVC chronically lower HRV
Hua (2016)	EVC with nicotine	NA	EVC use was associated with atrial fibrillation or myocardial infarction in two case reports.
Kennedy (2019)	EVC with nicotine, EVC without nicotine	Nihil, sham, TCC	EVC increased sympathetic nerve activity, platelet hemostatic processes, reactive oxygen species production and endothelial dysfunction. Notably, studies with conflicts of interest or median-high risk of bias were less likely to identify potentially harmful effects.
Riley (2016)	EVC with nicotine, EVC without nicotine	Nihil, sham, TCC	EVC may increase HR and BP less than TCC. CV events are rare among EVC users in the general population.
Skotsimara (2019)	EVC with nicotine	Nihil, sham, TCC	EVC have detrimental effects on endothelial function, arterial stiffness, and risk of coronary events, and also increase HR, SBP, and DBP. However, their impact on HR, SBP, and DBP is less severe than TCC.
Tzortzi (2020)	EVC with nicotine, EVC with cannabinoid and nicotine	NA	EVC use was associated with acute coronary syndromes in two young patients.

BP, blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; EVC, electronic vaping cigarette; HR, heart rate; NA, not applicable; NRT, nicotine replacement therapy; TCC, traditional combustion cigarette; SBP, systolic blood pressure