Table 2. Association between metabolic syndrome components and electronic cigarette exposure.
| Never user (n = 13,459) | Ever user (n = 954) | Current user (n = 325) | P trend | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reference | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | ||
| Abdominal obesity | ||||
| Model 1 | 1 | 1.48 (1.25–1.75) | 1.91 (1.44–2.52) | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | 1 | 1.45 (1.21–1.74) | 1.87 (1.41–2.48) | <0.001 |
| Model 3 | 1 | 1.44 (1.20–1.72) | 1.89 (1.42–2.51) | <0.001 |
| Model 4 | 1 | 1.42 (1.19–1.70) | 1.88 (1.41–2.50) | <0.001 |
| High triglycerides | ||||
| Model 1 | 1 | 1.64 (1.41–1.92) | 1.80 (1.37–2.36) | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | 1 | 1.22 (1.30–1.44) | 1.30 (1.00–1.71) | <0.01 |
| Model 3 | 1 | 1.20 (1.01–1.42) | 1.32 (1.00–1.74) | <0.01 |
| Model 4 | 1 | 1.20 (1.10–1.41) | 1.32 (1.00–1.74) | 0.01 |
| High fasting glucose | ||||
| Model 1 | 1 | 1.03 (0.86–1.24) | 1.20 (0.90–1.60) | 0.26 |
| Model 2 | 1 | 0.90 (0.75–1.09) | 1.04 (0.79–1.39) | 0.72 |
| Model 3 | 1 | 0.89 (0.73–1.07) | 1.05 (0.79–1.40) | 0.67 |
| Model 4 | 1 | 0.89 (0.74–1.08) | 1.05 (0.78–1.40) | 0.67 |
| Low HDL-cholesterol | ||||
| Model 1 | 1 | 1.35 (1.13–1.61) | 1.40 (1.06–1.85) | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | 1 | 1.13 (0.94–1.37) | 1.15 (0.87–1.54) | 0.16 |
| Model 3 | 1 | 1.15 (0.95–1.39) | 1.14 (0.86–1.52) | 0.15 |
| Model 4 | 1 | 1.15 (0.95–1.39) | 1.14 (0.86–1.52) | 0.16 |
| High blood pressure | ||||
| Model 1 | 1 | 1.29 (1.08–1.54) | 0.96 (0.73–1.26) | 0.13 |
| Model 2 | 1 | 1.23 (1.03–1.47) | 0.90 (0.68–1.20) | 0.49 |
| Model 3 | 1 | 1.19 (1.00–1.42) | 0.91 (0.68–1.21) | 0.59 |
| Model 4 | 1 | 1.19 (0.97–1.42) | 0.91 (0.68–1.21) | 0.60 |
a) Metabolic syndrome was defined in accordance with the modified Third National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (NCEP-ATP III) criteria and the abdominal obesity criteria of the Korean Society for the Study of Obesity.
b) Model 1 was adjusted for age and sex; Model 2 additionally adjusted for conventional cigarette exposure; Model 3 was additionally adjusted for alcohol consumption; and Model 4 was additionally adjusted for physical activity, household income, and education level.
c) The P-value for trend was measured using a logistic regression analysis considering electronic cigarette exposure as a continuous variable.
OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval.