Next Article in Journal
Association of Inflammatory and Metabolic Markers with Mortality in Patients with Postoperative Femur Fractures in the Intensive Care Unit
Previous Article in Journal
Continuous Non-Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cirrhotic Patients—Friend or Foe?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 61
Issue 3
10.3390/medicina61030537
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Vaping-Associated Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series

by
Moneeb Al-Taj
1,†,
Alameen Alsabbah
2,3,*,†,
Tariq Ma’ali
4,
Mohammad Abu Suilik
4,
Jehad Feras AlSamhori
5,
Ahmad Alloubani
2,3,
Ali Madha
3,6,
Anita V. Goyal
7 and
Abeer Gharaibeh
3,6,*
1
Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan
2
Center for Cognition and Neuroethics, University of Michigan-Flint, Flint, MI 48502, USA
3
Insight Research Institute, Flint, MI 48507, USA
4
Faculty of Medicine, Yarmouk University, Irbid 21163, Jordan
5
School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
6
Department of Research, Insight Hospital and Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60616, USA
7
Department of Emergency Medicine, Insight Hospital and Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60616, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Medicina 2025, 61(3), 537; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030537
Submission received: 5 February 2025 / Revised: 5 March 2025 / Accepted: 17 March 2025 / Published: 19 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Pulmonology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background and Objectives: Pneumothorax is a medical condition characterized by the accumulation of air in the pleural cavity, leading to lung collapse. While cigarette smoking is a well-known risk factor, the role of electronic cigarettes is less understood. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the outcomes of vaping-associated pneumothorax, in addition to its clinical features and management strategies, by compiling published case reports and case series. Materials and Methods: The choice to use case reports and case series was due to the limited availability of other types of studies on this emerging condition, as vaping-associated pneumothorax is relatively rare and primarily reported in isolated cases. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of six databases for case reports and case series. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by multiple reviewers. Results: Seven case reports and four case series with a total number of 16 patients were included. Most patients were young, underweight men who presented with chest pain and shortness of breath. Conventional cigarette and cannabis use were commonly reported alongside vaping. The main treatment was the insertion of a chest tube, with surgical interventions reserved for severe cases. Patients who were treated non-surgically exhibited a higher recurrence rate. Additionally, specific symptoms such as chest pain radiating to the ipsilateral shoulder were associated with a higher recurrence rate. Conclusions: Clinicians should be vigilant for pneumothorax in at-risk individuals, consider targeted screening for symptomatic vapers, and prioritize early surgical intervention in recurrent cases to reduce complications. Further research is needed to understand the pathophysiology of vaping-associated spontaneous pneumothorax and optimal management strategies.

1. Introduction

Pneumothorax occurs when air accumulates in the pleural cavity, causing various degrees of lung collapse [1]. It poses a considerable challenge to healthcare systems globally, with an annual incidence of 18–28 cases per 100,000 in males and 1.2–6 cases per 100,000 in females [2].
The risk factors and underlying causes of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) include environmental influences, genetic predisposition, smoking, being an adolescent or young adult, having a thin body type, and being male [3]. Additionally, recurrent spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in 20–60% of cases, with factors such as age, gender, smoking habits, the size of the pneumothorax, a low body mass index (BMI), and the chosen treatment approach thought to influence the likelihood of recurrence [4,5]. While cigarette smoking is a well-known risk factor for primary spontaneous pneumothorax [6], little is known about the role of electronic cigarettes in its development.
The use of electronic cigarettes has risen significantly over the past decade, particularly among adolescents and young adults, with approximately 20% of high school students and 5% of adults aged 18–34 currently using them [7]. E-cigarettes function by heating a liquid to create an aerosol that is inhaled into the lungs [8]. A key appeal of e-cigarettes lies in their ability to contain various chemical substances, including nicotine, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and cannabinoid oils, which can be combined with additives and flavors [8].
The long-term health risks of vaping are not yet fully understood, though several case reports have linked it to negative respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, and gastrointestinal effects [9,10,11]. Unfortunately, it is still unclear whether vaping contributes to the risk of spontaneous pneumothorax.
E-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) is a respiratory condition that mimics other lung diseases and is diagnosed based on recent vaping history, lung infiltrates on imaging, and the exclusion of alternative causes [12]. While bleb rupture is a known cause of spontaneous pneumothorax, other vaping-related mechanisms may also contribute. Exposure to toxic aerosols, especially those containing THC and vitamin E acetate, has been linked to alveolar damage, airway inflammation, oxidative stress, and impaired lung repair, all of which may weaken lung parenchyma and increase susceptibility to barotrauma [13].
The pathophysiology of vaping-associated pneumothorax (VAP) is complex and not entirely understood [3]. The inhalation of chemicals such as diacetyl and 2,3-pentadione may disrupt ciliary function and trigger airway inflammation and tissue damage, leading to the formation of blebs [14]. However, the presence of intact blebs during thoracoscopy suggests additional mechanisms, such as inflammatory changes in the visceral pleura [3]. Vaping-specific breathing patterns, such as the Valsalva and Müller maneuvers, combined with the high resistance of certain vaping devices, can generate abnormal airway pressures that significantly increase the risk of pneumothorax [15,16]. Figure 1 summarizes the suggested pathophysiological mechanisms for VAP.
As VAP is a relatively rare condition with limited research studies available on it, this review aimed to systematically focus on case reports and case series on VAP. Existing studies focus on vaping-related lung injuries like EVALI but do not specifically address its link to pneumothorax. With limited data and no prior systematic reviews on this topic, understanding remains fragmented. The goal of this study is to evaluate clinical characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes of VAP, providing insights that guide clinical practice and management guidelines. With the growing popularity of vaping, particularly among teenagers and young adults, it is essential to highlight its associated risks and equip healthcare professionals with the knowledge to identify and manage this emerging health concern.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, as detailed in the accompanying PRISMA checklist [17], and registered with PROSPERO (IDCRD42024603366; www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero (accessed on 18 November 2024)).

2.1. Search and Selection

An electronic search of six databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Science Direct, and Google Scholar, was conducted for case reports/series regarding VAP; the search included papers published from the inception of the databases through 5 November 2024. The combination of keywords and medical subject headings we utilized included (“Vaping” OR “Vape” OR “Ecigarette” OR “E-Cigarette” OR “Ecigarettes”) AND (“Pneumothorax” OR “Spontaneous Pneumothorax” OR “Pressure Pneumothorax” OR “Tension Pneumothorax”) with the appropriate filters for each database.
Two authors participated in the study selection, beginning with the removal of duplicates using EndNote™. The screening of titles and abstracts was independently conducted by four authors using Microsoft Excel. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved for full-text screening. Disagreements between two authors screening the same studies were resolved collaboratively. If a consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer was involved to resolve the conflict.
The inclusion criteria for this review focused on individuals diagnosed with vaping-associated pneumothorax via the assessment of clinical findings, presented in case reports or series published in peer-reviewed journals in English. Studies were included if they provided detailed information on patient demographics, vaping history, clinical presentation, diagnostic findings, management approaches, and patient outcomes. The exclusion criteria included cases in which pneumothorax was attributed to underlying lung diseases unrelated to vaping, reports that lacked detailed clinical data, or studies that focused on other vaping-related conditions, such as pneumomediastinum, without pneumothorax as a primary finding. The majority of studies were excluded as they only referred to one of the keywords or were not directly relevant to pneumothorax and vaping.

2.2. Data Extraction

Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers who carefully examined the full articles and extracted relevant information from the eligible studies. The extracted data were organized into standardized Google spreadsheets. To ensure accuracy, two additional reviewers independently verified the data. The collected variables included the characteristics of both the study and participants. Study characteristics encompassed details such as the authors, title, DOI, country, number of cases, and the year of publication. Participant characteristics included demographic information (age, gender), clinical presentation and associated symptoms (e.g., chest pain, shortness of breath, coughing, and chest pain radiation), physical examination findings (e.g., vital signs, BMI), initial management strategies (e.g., oxygen supplementation, chest tube use), surgical interventions, and information about vaping and smoking history. The majority of studies selected had the outcomes and clinical characteristics of interest, but when not clearly reported in the studies, they were labeled as Not Reported (N.R), and descriptive summary statistics were only performed on the data that were available.

2.3. Synthesis of Results

Descriptive statistics using Microsoft Excel 2024 and Python 3.9 were utilized to analyze the extracted data, with the frequency and proportion being calculated for categorical variables. Continuous variables are reported as means ± standard deviation (SD). Logistic Regression was performed to test for associations between variables, with odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and statistical significance reported for each of the variables; if the variable was categorical, then the non-treatment group was used as the reference group for calculating the odds ratios.

2.4. Assessment of Risk of Bias

The risk of bias and quality of the included studies were assessed independently by two authors using the IHE Quality Appraisal Checklist for Case Series and the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports. Any disagreements were addressed via a discussion between the authors.

3. Results

In this systematic review, a total of 493 records were initially identified through the search strategy. After removing 97 duplicate entries, 396 records remained for screening. During the title and abstract screening process, 350 records were excluded, leaving 46 articles for full-text review. Of these, 35 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria and were subsequently excluded. Ultimately, 11 articles were included in the review, comprising 7 case reports and 4 case series (Figure 2).
All of the included studies were published within the last 6 years, with the majority conducted in the USA. This study encompassed case reports and case series. A summary of the included studies and key patient characteristics is provided in Table 1. The quality assessment and overall evaluation of the included articles are presented in the Supplementary Materials.
The majority of patients (81%) were young men, predominantly classified as underweight (BMI < 18.5) or at the lower end of the normal weight range, as indicated in Table 2. The patients primarily complained of chest pain or shortness of breath, while chest pain radiating to the ipsilateral shoulder was noted in approximately one-third of cases, and coughing was a presenting symptom in half of the patients. Some presented with atypical symptoms, such as abdominal pain, extremity tingling, or a sense of impending doom. Conventional cigarette smoking was documented in 25% of cases, with a higher prevalence of cannabis use. Among 10 cases with recorded heart rates, the average was 87 beats per minute, with tachycardia (>100 bpm) observed in three patients. Evidence of tension physiology, such as mediastinal shift, increased intercostal spaces, and diaphragmatic depression, was noted in six cases, while blebs or bullae were identified in over half.
Most cases of VAP were initially managed with the insertion of a chest tube, while oxygen supplementation was used less frequently. Needle aspiration was performed in only one case. Among the 16 patients included in the study, 10 underwent surgical intervention, which was performed using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Blebectomy and pleurodesis were each performed in seven cases. Of the pleurodesis procedures, five were mechanical, while the remaining two were chemical. Pleurectomy was conducted less frequently, being performed in four patients.
The recurrence of pneumothorax was observed in six cases following the initial presentation, with all of these cases being managed non-surgically beforehand. The average interval between episodes was approximately two weeks. Patients presenting with chest pain radiating to the ipsilateral shoulder were significantly more likely to experience recurrent pneumothorax (Table 3).
Parenchymal abnormalities in the lung on imaging, characteristic of the e-cigarette or EVALI outbreak, were reported in six cases; these included ground-glass opacities, crazy paving patterns, large bullae, bronchiectasis, and lung volume loss. Parenchymal abnormalities in vaping-associated pneumothorax were significantly linked to age and the presentation of a cough (Table 4). Other factors such as a mediastinal shift and surgical needs showed high but non-significant odds.
No variables reached statistically significant associations with the presence of bullae/blebs in vaping-associated pneumothorax cases. However, the presence of tension had a higher odds ratio (OR 7.5, 95% CI: 0.6–92.3, p = 0.091), as shown in Table 3.
Cannabis users were significantly more likely to present with radiating chest pain to the ipsilateral shoulder (Table 4). They were also more likely to require oxygen supplementation and to show evidence of tension and lung parenchymal abnormalities on imaging, but these associations were not statistically significant.

4. Discussion

The results demonstrate a predominant prevalence among men; this aligns with the existing literature, which shows that young men are at a higher risk of spontaneous pneumothorax [29]. A higher prevalence of smoking, an earlier initiation of smoking, and smaller airways, which can lead to earlier airway obstruction, are potential explanations for this finding [6,30].
Given the limited case reports and series available, sensitivity analysis was not needed for most of the variables, as they were statistically insignificant. For the significant variables, the ORs fluctuated based on the studies included. Furthermore, as the sample size was small, the variance inflation factor was unable to be calculated to test for covariance. As most studies were case studies, each cell had <5 counts and statistical tests for heterogeneity were unable to be conducted.
The mean BMI in our study was 18.93 ± 2.88, suggesting that a significant proportion of the patients were underweight. This aligns with evidence showing that a lower BMI is associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax [31]. A leaner physique, characterized by a thinner chest wall and reduced subcutaneous fat, may provide less resistance to sudden increases in lung pressure, potentially leading to pleural damage and the development of pneumothorax [32].
Mediastinal shift was observed in 37.5% of vaping-associated pneumothorax cases, a frequency notably higher than the 17% reported in a study analyzing 176 spontaneous pneumothorax presentations [33]. This discrepancy may be attributed to rapid and severe changes in the pleural pressure induced by vaping.
Blebs or bullae were identified in 56.3% of vaping-associated pneumothorax cases, compared to 73.3% reported in a study on general pneumothorax cases [34]. In spontaneous pneumothorax, these structural abnormalities are a common cause, particularly in primary cases where they result from congenital or acquired weaknesses in the lung parenchyma [35]. The slightly lower prevalence of blebs or bullae in vaping-associated cases may suggest distinct underlying mechanisms, such as acute alveolar damage, inflammation, or chemical toxicity caused by vaping aerosols, which can cause pneumothorax without pre-existing structural defects.
In our study, 75% of VAP cases were managed with the insertion of a chest tube, while needle aspiration was used in one case. Oxygen supplementation was provided in 56.3% (9/16) of cases, and 1 case was managed through observation alone. These management patterns are consistent with another study reporting similar approaches to PSP [34]. Nonetheless, research indicates that needle aspiration can reduce patients’ length of hospitalization and rates without significantly impacting outcomes such as recurrence or complications when compared to chest tube insertion in primary spontaneous pneumothorax [36]. The limited use of needle aspiration in our study may be attributed to the larger pneumothorax size often observed in vaping-associated cases, where chest tube insertion is typically preferred for initial management. However, aspiration puncture has also been recognized as an effective treatment option, particularly in regions where it is more frequently practiced.
Among the 16 patients included in our study, 10 underwent surgical intervention, all via VATS. This is consistent with other studies, which identify it as the preferred surgical modality for PSP due to its safety, reduced hospital stays, and improved patient satisfaction [37,38]. Notably, no recurrences were reported among the patients who underwent VATS, aligning with evidence showing that preventive surgical approaches significantly lower recurrence rates compared to non-preventive methods such as observation, needle aspiration, or chest drainage [39]. These findings underscore the role of VATS as a definitive treatment for PSP, delivering durable outcomes and an enhanced quality of care.
Pleurodesis was performed in seven cases, with five being mechanical and two chemical. Evidence from other studies suggests comparable outcomes between mechanical and chemical pleurodesis, although some findings indicate a lower recurrence rate with talc chemical pleurodesis compared to mechanical methods [40]. One study demonstrated statistical significance favoring talc, while a larger, more recent study found no significant difference in recurrence over a 10-year follow-up [41]. Further research is needed to confirm the most effective intervention.
Six cases experienced recurrence after the initial presentation, with all of them initially managed using non-surgical methods. This corresponds with the recurrence rates reported in previous studies, with rates of 34% in patients treated with chest tubes compared to rates of 12% in those undergoing VATS [42]. While international guidelines generally recommend surgery only in certain situations [43], the increasing preference for early surgical intervention in some cases suggests a potential shift in the standard of care due to its effectiveness in reducing recurrence. However, the optimal approach remains controversial, requiring individualized decision-making based on clinical factors and patient preferences.
Chest pain radiating to the ipsilateral shoulder was significantly associated with recurrence, while coughing showed a protective effect. These findings complement the existing literature, where radiographic evidence of blebs was inconsistently associated with the risk of recurrence in prior studies [35,36,42,43,44]; in addition, female sex was linked to increased recurrence in a systematic review [45]. Additionally, smoking cessation has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence four-fold [45], highlighting the importance of addressing modifiable factors that affect the risk of recurrence. The variability in associations underscores the multifactorial nature of pneumothorax recurrence, suggesting that both clinical and demographic factors should guide management and recurrence prevention strategies.
A significant proportion of cases exhibited parenchymal abnormalities in the lung, including ground-glass opacities, “crazy paving” patterns, and the presence of unusual large bullae. These findings are consistent with descriptions of lung injury in the EVALI outbreak [46], suggesting a potential overlap in pathology between EVALI and pneumothorax in vape users. Notably, older patients had significantly higher odds of presenting with parenchymal abnormalities, which may indicate the cumulative effect of vaping over time.
EVALI shares clinical features with PSP, such as chest pain, shortness of breath, and imaging findings like ground-glass opacities. While PSP is linked to bleb formation, vaping-related pneumothorax may also involve inflammation and chemical toxicity, highlighting the possible shared pathophysiology [46,47].
Our study found that the use of cannabis was prevalent among VAP cases, with mediastinal shift frequently observed. This aligns with prior evidence showing that cannabis smokers are more prone to severe respiratory symptoms, bullous lung disease, and tension pneumothorax physiology [48], highlighting their higher risk profile and need for targeted management.
Compared to traditional smoking, vaping has been associated with higher airway reactivity, increased deposition of ultrafine particles, and lipid-laden macrophages, all of which may contribute to lung instability and pneumothorax. Additionally, emerging evidence suggests that vaping-related changes in lung compliance and microvascular injury may exacerbate ventilation–perfusion mismatch, further differentiating its effects from conventional smoking [49].
Given the potential link between vaping and pneumothorax, clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for pneumothorax in patients with vaping history presenting with chest pain or respiratory symptoms. Screening for vaping history in young patients with spontaneous pneumothorax may aid in the early identification of at-risk individuals. Additionally, our study supports the growing preference for early surgical intervention, particularly VATS, in recurrent cases due to its lower recurrence rates and improved outcomes. While further research is needed to establish causation, raising clinical awareness of this association can help guide timely diagnosis and optimal management strategies.

5. Strengths and Limitations

This study highlights concerns regarding the potential risks associated with vaping. A broad search of multiple databases ensures a comprehensive collection of case reports and series. These studies were assessed for their quality and risk of bias, making the results more reliable. This review provides a detailed analysis of patient characteristics, management strategies, and the outcomes of VAP, thus offering valuable clinical insights.
This study has several limitations, primarily its reliance on case reports and case series, which are subject to publication and recall bias, as well as missing data. The retrospective nature and small sample size limit causation analysis and generalizability, especially given the under-reporting of vaping in clinical settings. Additionally, some patients had a history of smoking or cannabis use, making it difficult to isolate vaping as an independent risk factor. While this review identifies clinical patterns, it does not determine whether VAP differs from spontaneous cases in non-vapers. Future prospective studies with standardized data collection, imaging, and histological analysis are needed to better understand this association.

6. Conclusions

This systematic review highlights that pneumothorax in individuals who vape mainly affects young underweight men, especially those who use cannabis. The most common presentation included chest pain and shortness of breath. Atypical presentations such as abdominal pain were reported. On imaging, some common parenchymal abnormalities in the lung were found to be more prevalent, such as ground-glass opacities and bullae. The management of pneumothorax typically involves the insertion of a chest tube, while surgical intervention is reserved for severe cases. The higher rate of recurrence in patients presenting with chest pain radiating to the ipsilateral shoulder was a particularly interesting association. Despite tension physiology being linked to VAP, no significant associations with the presence of blebs were found.
With the rising prevalence of vaping, clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for pneumothorax in at-risk individuals and consider targeted screening for symptomatic vapers. Early surgical intervention may be preferable, particularly in recurrent cases, to reduce long-term complications. Future research should aim to identify high-risk populations and refine management strategies to minimize recurrence rates.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/medicina61030537/s1, Table S1: The quality assessment and overall appraisal of included case reports.; Table S2: The quality assessment and overall appraisal of the included case series.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.-T. and A.A. (Alameen Alsabbah); methodology, M.A.-T., A.A. (Alameen Alsabbah), T.M., M.A.S., J.F.A., A.A. (Ahmad Alloubani) and A.M.; validation, M.A.-T., A.A. (Alameen Alsabbah) and A.G.; formal analysis, M.A.-T., A.A. (Alameen Alsabbah), T.M., M.A.S., J.F.A., A.A. (Ahmad Alloubani) and A.M.; investigation, M.A.-T., A.A. (Alameen Alsabbah), A.V.G. and A.G.; resources, A.M. and A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.-T., A.A. (Alameen Alsabbah), T.M., M.A.S., J.F.A. and A.A. (Ahmad Alloubani); writing—review and editing, A.M., A.V.G. and A.G.; visualization, T.M., M.A.S., J.F.A. and A.A. (Ahmad Alloubani); project administration, A.V.G. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available within this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

Support for publishing this review was provided by the Insight Research Institute. AI was used for paraphrasing of specific paragraphs in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lyra, R.D.M. Etiology of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. J. Bras. Pneumol. 2016, 42, 222–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Melton, L.J.; Hepper, N.G.; Offord, K.P. Incidence of spontaneous pneumothorax in Olmsted County, Minnesota: 1950 to 1974. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1979, 120, 1379–1382. [Google Scholar]
  3. Noppen, M. Spontaneous pneumothorax: Epidemiology, pathophysiology and cause. Eur. Respir. Rev. 2010, 19, 217–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Luh, S.-P. Diagnosis and treatment of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. J. Zhejiang Univ. B 2010, 11, 735–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sadikot, R.T.; Greene, T.; Meadows, K.; Arnold, A.G. Recurrence of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Thorax 1997, 52, 805–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bense, L.; Eklund, G.; Wiman, L.-G. Smoking and the increased risk of contracting spontaneous pneumothorax. Chest 1987, 92, 1009–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bhatnagar, A.; Whitsel, L.P.; Blaha, M.J.; Huffman, M.D.; Krishan-Sarin, S.; Maa, J.; Rigotti, N.; Robertson, R.M.; Warner, J.J.; On behalf of the American Heart Association. New and Emerging Tobacco Products and the Nicotine Endgame: The Role of Robust Regulation and Comprehensive Tobacco Control and Prevention: A Presidential Advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2019, 139, E937–E958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zulkifli, A.; Abidin, E.Z.; Abidin, N.Z.; Nordin, A.S.A.; Praveena, S.M.; Ismail, S.N.S.; Rasdi, I.; Karuppiah, K.; Rahman, A.A. Electronic cigarettes: A systematic review of available studies on health risk assessment. Rev. Environ. Health 2018, 33, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hua, M.; Talbot, P. Potential health effects of electronic cigarettes: A systematic review of case reports. Prev. Med. Rep. 2016, 4, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kivrak, T.; Sunbul, M.; Durmus, E.; Dervisova, R.; Sari, I.; Yesildag, O. Acute myocardial infarction due to liquid nicotine in a young man. Ther. Adv. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2014, 8, 32–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Camus, M.; Gallois, G.; Marteau, P. Ulcerative colitis and electronic cigarette: What‘s the matter? Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 109, 608–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Schier, J.G. Severe Pulmonary Disease Associated with Electronic-Cigarette–Product Use—Interim Guidance. Mmwr-Morbidity Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2019, 68, 787–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Cherian, S.V.; Kumar, A.; Estrada-Y-Martin, R.M. E-Cigarette or Vaping Product-Associated Lung Injury: A Review. Am. J. Med. 2020, 133, 657–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Allen, J.G.; Flanigan, S.S.; LeBlanc, M.; Vallarino, J.; MacNaughton, P.; Stewart, J.H.; Christiani, D.C. Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione, and Acetoin in a Sample of 51 Products, Including Fruit-, Candy-, and Cocktail-Flavored E-Cigarettes. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Miller, W.E.; Spiekerman, R.E.; Hepper, N.G. Pneumomediastinum resaulting from performing valsalva maneuvers during marihuana smoking. Chest 1972, 62, 233–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hazouard, E.; Koninck, J.-C.; Attucci, S.; Fauchier-Rolland, F.; Brunereau, L.; Diot, P. Pneumorachis and pneumomediastinum caused by repeated Müller‘s maneuvers: Complications of marijuana smoking. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2001, 38, 694–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Brennan, S.E.; Chou, R.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Skertich, N.J.; Sullivan, G.A.; Madonna, M.B.; Shah, A.N. Vaping is a risk factor for spontaneous pneumothorax: Two cases. J. Pediatr. Surg. Case Rep. 2019, 50, 101305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ali, M.; Khan, K.; Buch, M.; Ramirez, M.R.; Sharma, M.; Patel, S.; Choudhury, S.; Anjum, H.; Khan, A.; Surani, S. A Case Series of Vaping-Induced Lung Injury in a Community Hospital Setting. Case Rep. Pulmonol. 2020, 2020, 9631916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wieckowska, J.; Assaad, U.; Aboudan, M. Pneumothorax secondary to vaping. Respir. Med. Case Rep. 2021, 33, 101421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Borchert, D.H.; Kelm, H.; Morean, M.; Tannapfel, A. Reporting of pneumothorax in association with vaping devices and electronic cigarettes. BMJ Case Rep. 2021, 14, e247844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ashraf, O.; Nasrullah, A.; Karna, R.; Alhajhusain, A. Vaping associated spontaneous pneumothorax–A case series of an enigmatic entity! Respir. Med. Case Rep. 2021, 34, 101535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bonilla, A.; Blair, A.J.; Alamro, S.M.; Ward, R.A.; Feldman, M.B.; Dutko, R.A.; Karagounis, T.K.; Johnson, A.L.; Folch, E.E.; Vyas, J.M. Recurrent spontaneous pneumothoraces and vaping in an 18-year-old man: A case report and review of the literature. J. Med. Case Rep. 2019, 13, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sharma, M.; Anjum, H.; Bulathsinghala, C.P.; Buch, M.; Surani, S.R. A Case Report of Secondary Spontaneous Pneumothorax Induced by Vape. Cureus 2019, 11, e6067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Deskins, S.J.; Luketich, S.K.; Al-Qatarneh, S. Recurrent spontaneous pneumothorax in a 15-year-old female associated with electronic cigarettes. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2022, 57, 2568–2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wu, M.; Mohammed, T.-L.H. Electronic Cigarette or Vaping Product Use–associated Lung Injury: Diffuse Alveolar Damage. Radiol. Cardiothorac. Imaging 2020, 2, e200027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Reddy, A.; Jenssen, B.P.; Chidambaram, A.; Yehya, N.; Lindell, R.B. Characterizing e-cigarette vaping-associated lung injury in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2020, 56, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Khuan, W.H.; Wong, C.K. Vaping—A Precipitating Factor of Pneumothorax in A Smoker? Malays. J. Med. Health Sci. 2023, 19, 366–368. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bobbio, A.; Dechartres, A.; Bouam, S.; Damotte, D.; Rabbat, A.; Régnard, J.-F.; Roche, N.; Alifano, M. Epidemiology of spontaneous pneumothorax: Gender-related differences. Thorax 2015, 70, 653–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Taussig, L.; Cota, K.; Kaltenborn, W. Different mechanical-properties of the lung in boys and girls. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1981, 123, 640–643. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tan, J.; Yang, Y.; Zhong, J.; Zuo, C.; Tang, H.; Zhao, H.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, J.; Guo, J.; Yang, N. Association Between BMI and Recurrence of Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax. World J. Surg. 2016, 41, 1274–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Huang, H.; Peng, X.; Zhang, H.; Li, W.; Wang, C. A Retrospective Case-Control Study on the Chest Wall and Lung Characteristics in Patients with Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax. Med. Sci. Monit. 2019, 25, 8482–8491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Clark, S.; Ragg, M.; Stella, J. Is mediastinal shift on chest X-ray of pneumothorax always an emergency? Emerg. Med. 2003, 15, 429–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sousa, C. Spontaneous pneumothorax: A 5-year experience. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2011, 3, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Casali, C.; Stefani, A.; Ligabue, G.; Natali, P.; Aramini, B.; Torricelli, P.; Morandi, U. Role of blebs and bullae detected by high-resolution computed tomography and recurrent spontaneous pneumothorax. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2013, 95, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, C.; Lyu, M.; Zhou, J.; Liu, Y.; Ji, Y. Chest tube drainage versus needle aspiration for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: Which is better? J. Thorac. Dis. 2017, 9, 4027–4038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khan, A.A.; Zahid, M.; Alhiyari, M.A.; Al-Andulmalek, A.A.; Jumbo, U.E.; Kloub, M.N.; Muslim, M.; Naeem, M.; Yousaf, Z.; Mazhar, R.; et al. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and recurrence rate of patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax at a tertiary care center in Qatar. Qatar Med. J. 2022, 2022, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lippert, H.; Lund, O.; Blegvad, S.; Larsen, H. Independent risk factors for cumulative recurrence rate after first spontaneous pneumothorax. Eur. Respir. J. 1991, 4, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Olesen, W.H.; Katballe, N.; Sindby, J.E.; Titlestad, I.L.; Andersen, P.E.; Lindahl-Jacobsen, R.; Licht, P.B. Surgical treatment versus conventional chest tube drainage in primary spontaneous pneumothorax: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2018, 54, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sepehripour, A.H.; Nasir, A.; Shah, R. Does mechanical pleurodesis result in better outcomes than chemical pleurodesis for recurrent primary spontaneous pneumothorax? Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2011, 14, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shaikhrezai, K.; Thompson, A.I.; Parkin, C.; Stamenkovic, S.; Walker, W.S. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery management of spontaneous pneumothorax—Long-term results. Eur. J. Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2011, 40, 120–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Goto, T. Is surgery the choice for treatment for first presentation of pneumothorax? J. Thorac. Dis. 2019, 11, S1398–S1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Baumann, M.H.; Strange, C.; Heffner, J.E.; Light, R.; Kirby, T.J.; Klein, J.; Luketich, J.D.; Panacek, E.A.; Sahn, S.A. Management of Spontaneous Pneumothorax. Chest 2001, 119, 590–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Martínez-Ramos, D.; Ángel-Yepes, V.; Escrig-Sos, J.; Miralles-Tena, J.M.; Salvador-Sanchís, J.L. Usefulness of Computed Tomography in Determining Risk of Recurrence After a First Episode of Primary Spontaneous Pneumothorax: Therapeutic Implications. Arch. Bronconeumol. 2007, 43, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Walker, S.P.; Bibby, A.C.; Halford, P.; Stadon, L.; White, P.; Maskell, N.A. Recurrence rates in primary spontaneous pneumothorax: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Respir. J. 2018, 52, 1800864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Layden, J.E.; Ghinai, I.; Pray, I.; Kimball, A.; Layer, M.; Tenforde, M.W.; Navon, L.; Hoots, B.; Salvatore, P.; Elderbrook, M.; et al. Pulmonary Illness Related to E-Cigarette Use in Illinois and Wisconsin—Preliminary Report. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 382, 903–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gilday, C.; Odunayo, A.; Hespel, A.-M. Spontaneous Pneumothorax: Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis. Top. Companion Anim. Med. 2021, 45, 100563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stefani, A.; Aramini, B.; Baraldi, C.; Pellesi, L.; Della Casa, G.; Morandi, U.; Guerzoni, S. Secondary spontaneous pneumothorax and bullous lung disease in cannabis and tobacco smokers: A case-control study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bernhard, D.; Messner, B. Vaping Versus Smoking: Are Electronic-Cigarettes the Savior? Arter. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2024, 44, 1012–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Medicina 61 00537 g001
Figure 1. The pathophysiological mechanisms of VAP.
Figure 1. The pathophysiological mechanisms of VAP.
Medicina 61 00537 g001
Medicina 61 00537 g002
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram demonstrating the selection process and the number of studies identified, screened, excluded, and included at each stage. ** Reports were excluded after title and abstract screening.
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram demonstrating the selection process and the number of studies identified, screened, excluded, and included at each stage. ** Reports were excluded after title and abstract screening.
Medicina 61 00537 g002
Table 1. Summary of key patient characteristics and design by studies included.
Table 1. Summary of key patient characteristics and design by studies included.
Author (ID)Study DesignStudy NCountryChest DrainRecurrenceSurgical InterventionAge (Mean, SD)Gender, Male N (%)BMI (Mean, SD)Radiation to the Ipsilateral ShoulderCoughingSmokingCannabisLung Parenchymal AbnormalitiesEvidence of TensionBleb/BullaeOxygenChest DrainRecurrenceSurgical Intervention
Skertich et al., 2019 [18]Case series2USAYesYesYes15.5 (0.5)2 (100%)18.8 (0.20)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (50%)0 (0%)2 (100%)2 (100%)2 (100%)
Ali et al., 2020 [19]Case series2USAYesNoYes23.0 (11.0)2 (100%)NA0 (0%)2 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (50%)1 (50%)1 (50%)0 (0%)2 (100%)0 (0%)1 (50%)
Wieckowska et al., 2021 [20]Case report1USANoNoNo19 (NA)1 (100%)20.5 (NA)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Borchert et al., 2021 [21]Case report1GermanyYesNoYes34 (NA)1 (100%)23.6 (NA)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)1 (100%)
Ashraf et al., 2021 [22]Case series4USANoNoNo23.0 (7.0)3 (75%)18.6 (3.12)3 (75%)2 (50%)1 (25%)4 (100%)2 (50%)0 (0%)3 (75%)2 (50%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Bonilla et al., 2019 [23]Case report1USAYesYesNo18 (NA)1 (100%)16.9 (NA)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)
Sharma et al., 2019 [24]Case report1USAYesNoYes35 (NA)1 (100%)NA0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)1 (100%)1 (100%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)1 (100%)
Deskins et al., 2022 [25]Case report1USAYesYesYes15 (NA)0 (0%)NA1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)1 (100%)1 (100%)1 (100%)
Wu & Mohammed, 2020 [26]Case report1USANoNoYes35 (NA)1 (100%)NA0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)
Reddy et al., 2020 [27]Case series 1USANoNoNo17 (NA)0 (0%)NA0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
Khuan & Wong, 2023 [28] Case report1MalaysiaYesNoNo24 (NA)1 (100%)16.3 (NA)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (100%)1 (100%)0 (0%)0 (0%)
BMI: body mass index.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of clinical parameters, findings, and treatment approaches.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis of clinical parameters, findings, and treatment approaches.
VariableCategoryN (%)Mean, SD
Age15–2512 (75)23.44 (8.1)
26–354 (25)
GenderMale13 (81)
BMINormal4 (40)18.93 (2.88)
Underweight6 (60)
Side of pneumothoraxRight8 (50)
Left6 (37.5)
Bilateral2 (12.5)
Radiation of chest pain 5 (31.3)
Coughing 9 (56.3)
Smoking 4 (25)
THC 10 (62.5)
Heart rateNormal7 (70)87.1
Tachycardia3 (30)
Respiratory rateNormal6 (67)20
Tachypnea3 (33)
Oxygen≥95%11 (92)
Lung parenchymal abnormalities 6 (37.5)
Bleb/bullae 9 (56.3)
Evidence of tension 6 (37.5)
Observation 1 (6.25)
Needle aspiration 1 (6.25)
Oxygen 9 (56.3)
Chest tube 12 (75)
Recurrence 6 (37.5)
Surgical intervention 10 (62.5)
BMI: body mass index. THC: tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis).
Table 3. The association of clinical parameters, findings, and treatment approaches in relation to the presence of bullae/blebs and recurrence of pneumothorax.
Table 3. The association of clinical parameters, findings, and treatment approaches in relation to the presence of bullae/blebs and recurrence of pneumothorax.
Bullae/Bleb (N%) Recurrence N (%)
OR (95% CI)p-Value OR (95% CI)p-Value
Age4.800 (0.397–58.013)0.197 0.300 (0.025–3.626)0.33
26–354 (80%) 1 (20)
15–25 R5 (45.5) 5 (45.5)
Gender0.583 (0.042–8.146)0.687 1.250 (0.089–17.653)0.869
Male7 (53.8) 5 (38.5)
RIS4.800 (0.397–58.013)0.197 18.000 (1.242–260.918)0.018 *
4 (80) 4 (80)
Coughing0.938 (0.128–6.875)0.949 0.050 (0.004–0.706)0.013 *
5 (55.6) 1 (11.1)
Oxygen usage0.938 (0.128–6.875)0.949 0.214 (0.024–1.877)0.152
5 (55.6) 2 (22.2)
Chest tube6.000 (0.463–77.750)0.146 .0.074
8 (66.7) 6 (50)
SI4.667 (0.533–40.886)0.152 0.200 (0.017–2.386)0.182
7 (70) 1 (16.7)
LPA2.000 (0.244–16.362)0.515 2.333 (0.287–18.965)0.424
4 (66.7) 3 (50)
ET7.500 (0.621–90.646)0.091 2.000 (0.244–16.362)0.515
5 (83.3) 4 (44.4)
Recurrence2.000 (0.244–16.362)0.515 0.467 (0.037–5.903)0.551
4 (66.7) 1 (25)
Smoking0.714 (0.074–6.922)0.771 1.333 (0.161–11.075)0.79
2 (50) 4 (40)
THC1.500 (0.195–11.536)0.696
6 (60)
OR: odds ratio. CI: confidence interval. R: reference group. *: significant finding. RIS: radiation to the ipsilateral shoulder. SI: surgical intervention. LPA: lung parenchymal abnormality. ET: evidence of tension. THC: tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis).
Table 4. The association of clinical parameters, findings, and treatment approaches in relation to the presence of lung parenchymal abnormalities and THC consumption.
Table 4. The association of clinical parameters, findings, and treatment approaches in relation to the presence of lung parenchymal abnormalities and THC consumption.
Lung Parenchymal Abnormalities N (%) THC N (%)
OR (95% CI)p-Value OR (95% CI)p-Value
Age18.000 (1.242–260.918)0.018 * 0.857 (0.098–7.510)0.889
26–354 (80) 3 (60)
15–25 R2 (18.2) 7 (63.6)
Gender0.222 (0.015–3.221)0.247 .0.137
Male4 (30.8) 7 (53.8)
RIS0.300 (0.025–3.626)0.33 .0.037 *
Yes1 (20) 5 (100)
Coughing.0.006 * 0.500 (0.061–4.091)0.515
Yes6 (66.7) 5 (55.6)
Oxygen usage2.000 (0.244–16.362)0.515 4.667 (0.533–40.886)0.152
Yes4 (44.4) 7 (77.8)
Chest tube0.500 (0.050–4.978)0.551 .0.074
Yes4 (33.3) 6 (50)
SI5.000 (0.419–59.657)0.182 0.750 (0.090–6.230)0.79
Yes5 (50) 6 (60)
ET8.000 (0.803–79.655)0.062 5.000 (0.419–59.657)0.182
Yes4 (66.7) 5 (83.3)
Bullae/Bleb2.000 (0.244–16.362)0.515 5.000 (0.419–59.657)0.182
Yes4 (44.4) 5 (83.3)
Recurrence0.200 (0.017–2.386)0.182 1.500 (0.195–11.536)0.696
Yes1 (16.7) 6 (66.7)
Smoking0.467 (0.037–5.903)0.551 1.333 (0.161–11.075)0.79
Yes1 (25) 4 (66.7)
THC5.000 (0.419–59.657)0.182
Yes5 (50)
OR: odds ratio. CI: confidence interval. R: reference group. *: significant finding. RIS: radiation to the ipsilateral shoulder. SI: surgical intervention. ET: evidence of tension. THC: tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Al-Taj, M.; Alsabbah, A.; Ma’ali, T.; Abu Suilik, M.; AlSamhori, J.F.; Alloubani, A.; Madha, A.; Goyal, A.V.; Gharaibeh, A. Vaping-Associated Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series. Medicina 2025, 61, 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030537

AMA Style

Al-Taj M, Alsabbah A, Ma’ali T, Abu Suilik M, AlSamhori JF, Alloubani A, Madha A, Goyal AV, Gharaibeh A. Vaping-Associated Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series. Medicina. 2025; 61(3):537. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030537

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al-Taj, Moneeb, Alameen Alsabbah, Tariq Ma’ali, Mohammad Abu Suilik, Jehad Feras AlSamhori, Ahmad Alloubani, Ali Madha, Anita V. Goyal, and Abeer Gharaibeh. 2025. "Vaping-Associated Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series" Medicina 61, no. 3: 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030537

APA Style

Al-Taj, M., Alsabbah, A., Ma’ali, T., Abu Suilik, M., AlSamhori, J. F., Alloubani, A., Madha, A., Goyal, A. V., & Gharaibeh, A. (2025). Vaping-Associated Pneumothorax: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Case Series. Medicina, 61(3), 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030537

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop