Volume 3, Issue 2 (2024)                   GMJM 2024, 3(2): 43-46 | Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Original Research |



How to cite this article
Hammoudi D, Sanyaolu A, Adofo D, Antoine I. Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Lung Capacity of Active-, Previous-, and Non-Smoker Students. GMJM 2024; 3 (2) :43-46
URL: http://gmedicine.de/article-2-249-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Rights and permissions
1- Saint James School of Medicine, Anguilla, BWI
* Corresponding Author Address: Saint James School of Medicine, Anguilla, BWI. (sanyakunle@gmail.com)
Abstract   (873 Views)
Aims: Cigarette smoke predisposes a person to a lot of preventable diseases; this study aimed at comparing lung function in active, previous and non-smoking students.
Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 77 students from the St. James School of Medicine, Anguilla, campus in the Caribbean who were active-, previous- or non-smokers were randomly sampled. The Forced Vital Capacity to Forced Expiratory Volume ratio in one second called the Tiffeneau-Pinelli Index was used.
Findings: The mean FEV/FVC ratio for smokers was lower than that for non-smokers and ex-smokers in both tests. The FEV/FVC ratio by sex was higher in females for both tests. There were significant differences among the races with Caucasians having the lowest mean value of 86.04 and 85.88 for test 1 and 2, respectively. Higher ratio than 0.7 for smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers was recorded for mean FEV/FVC ratio.
Conclusion: There are no differences in FEV/FVC ratio between smokers and non-smokers and ex-smokers.

1. Müller T, Hengstermann A. Nrf2: Friend and foe in preventing cigarette smoking-dependent lung disease. Chem Res Toxicol. 2012;25(9):1805-24. [Link] [DOI:10.1021/tx300145n]
2. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. The health consequences of smoking- 50 years of progress: A report of the surgeon general. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US). 2014;27. [Link]
3. Satcher D, Thompson TG, Koplan JP. Women and smoking: A report of the Surgeon General. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002;4(1):7-20. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/14622200210135650]
4. Stevenson CS, Belvisi MG. Preclinical animal models of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2008;2(5):631-43. [Link] [DOI:10.1586/17476348.2.5.631]
5. Standardization of Spirometry, 1994 Update. American Thoracic Society. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(3):1107-36. [Link] [DOI:10.1164/ajrccm.152.3.7663792]
6. Barreiro TJ, Perillo I. An approach to interpreting spirometry. Am Fam physician. 2004;69(5):1107-16. [Link]
7. Chiappa S, Winn J, Viñuela A, Tipney H, Spector TD. A probabilistic model of biological ageing of the lungs for analysing the effects of smoking, asthma and COPD. Respir Rres. 2013;14(1):60. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/1465-9921-14-60]
8. Stanojevic S, Wade A, Stocks J, Hankinson J, Coates AL, Pan H, et al. Reference ranges for spirometry across all ages: A new approach. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2008;177(3):253-60. [Link] [DOI:10.1164/rccm.200708-1248OC]
9. Agaku IT, King BA, Dube SR. Current cigarette smoking among adults-United States, 2005-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(2):29-34. [Link]
10. Valavanidis A, Vlachogianni T, Fiotakis K. Tobacco smoke: Involvement of reactive oxygen species and stable free radicals in mechanisms of oxidative damage, carcinogenesis and synergistic effects with other respirable particles. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(2):445-62. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/ijerph6020445]