Acute Effects of Cannabis Inhalation on Arterial Stiffness, Vascular Endothelial Function, and Cardiac Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The cardiovascular impact of cannabis use is incompletely understood. Although evidence links chronic use to an increased risk of disease and adverse cardiovascular events, few studies have investigated the acute effects of cannabis inhalation on subclinical dysfunction. Furthermore, it remains unknown how method of inhalation and cannabinoid profile modify risk. While controlling for inhalation method and the effects of either Δ‐9‐tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol (CBD), we examined the acute cardiovascular effects of cannabis use on arterial stiffness, vascular endothelial responsiveness, and cardiac function, as markers of cardiovascular impairment. Methods and Results Twenty‐two young, healthy, cannabis users were assessed for arterial stiffness via pulse wave velocity, vascular endothelial function via brachial artery flow mediated dilation, and cardiac function via echocardiography, before and after (1) smoking THC‐predominant cannabis (S‐THC), (2) vaporizing THC‐predominant THC (V‐THC), and (3) vaporizing cannabidiol‐predominant cannabis (V‐CBD). S‐THC and V‐THC increased heart rate (S‐THC: ∆17±15 bpm, V‐THC: ∆16±16 bpm;both P <0.0001) and mean arterial pressure (S‐THC: ∆7±6 mm Hg, V‐THC: ∆5±5 mm Hg;both P <0.0001) whereas V‐CBD did not (∆1±4 bpm, ∆3±4 mm Hg;both P >0.05). After inhalation, pulse wave velocity increased (S‐THC: ∆0.29±0.75 m/s, V‐THC: ∆0.42±0.74 m/s, V‐CBD: ∆0.10±0.44 m/s; P =0.002) and diastolic function was reduced ([early/late ratio] S‐THC: ∆‐0.2±0.53, V‐THC: ∆‐0.33±58, V‐CBD: ∆0.01±66; P =0.03). Differences in heart rate were related to changes in pulse wave velocity (r 2 =0.2; P =0.0002) and diastolic function (r 2 =0.26; P <0.0001). Inhalation method did not alter these cannabinoid‐dependent responses. Conclusions THC predominant, but not cannabidiol predominant, cannabis elicits increases in heart rate and blood pressure irrespective of inhalation method, which may increase arterial stiffness and reduce diastolic function. These findings implicate THC as a relevant factor for cannabis‐related subclinical cardiovascular dysfunction. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04693884.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".