You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Case report
Lung injury from e-cigarette use: a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours
  1. Robert Chapman1,
  2. Conor D Tweed1,2 and
  3. Ian Moonsie1
  1. 1Respiratory Medicine Department, North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2MRC Clinical Trials Unit, UCL, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Robert Chapman; robert.chapman2{at}nhs.net

Abstract

A 62-year-old man presented with worsening dyspnoea, haemoptysis and reduced exercise tolerance. He was found to be hypoxaemic with bilateral basal opacification on chest imaging, but inflammatory markers, respiratory virus PCR and sputum culture demonstrated no signs of infection. The patient reported having initially mild, yet progressive, symptoms since he started vaping 14 months previously. He was treated with oxygen therapy, supportive care and cessation of vaping. Chest imaging at discharge showed marked improvement of previous bilateral opacification and the patient returned to baseline exercise tolerance, with no oxygen requirement. Vaping is becoming more common in the UK and this case demonstrates the importance of considering electronic vaping-associated lung injury in cases of non-infective lung injury.

  • radiology
  • respiratory medicine
  • pneumonia (respiratory medicine)
  • tobacco related disease
  • smoking and tobacco

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2020-237338

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RC produced the initial draft of the case report. CDT reviewed the draft and made necessary changes with RC. IM conceived the idea of the report and was part of the draft and review process.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Obtained.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.