E-Zigaretten – toxikologisches Fiasko oder besser als kein Rauchstopp?

E-cigarettes: toxicological fiasco or better than not giving up smoking?


E‑Zigaretten werden zunehmend für den Ersatz von Tabakzigaretten und zum Ausstieg aus dem Zigarettenkonsum genutzt, überwiegend jedoch im Sinne einer parallelen Nutzung („dual use“). Es gibt lebhafte Kontroversen um die Bewertung der Gesundheitsrisiken der E‑Zigarette, bislang jedoch ohne umfassende Daten zum direkten Vergleich mit der Tabakzigarette. Weitere Streitpunkte sind das Potenzial für die Tabakentwöhnung und das Risiko der Hinführung von der E‑Zigarette zur Tabakzigarette (Gateway-Hypothese). Die vorgelegte Übersicht kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass E‑Zigaretten entsprechend der bereits in Großbritannien weitestgehend umgesetzten Gesundheitspolitik ein gegenüber der Tabakzigarette stark herabgesetztes Risiko für die Gesundheit darstellen und sich für die Tabakentwöhnung durchaus eignen.


E‑cigarettes are increasingly used to replace tobacco cigarettes and to stop smoking, but mainly in the sense of dual use. There is lively debate about the assessment of the health risks of e‑cigarettes, but so far there are no comprehensive data for direct comparison with tobacco cigarettes. Other points of controversy include the potential for smoking cessation and the risk of moving from e‑cigarettes to tobacco cigarettes (gateway hypothesis). The present overview comes to the conclusion that, in accordance with the health policy already largely implemented in Great Britain, e‑cigarettes represent a greatly reduced health risk compared with tobacco cigarettes and are certainly suitable for giving up smoking.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5


  1. 1.

    FAZ (2017) So alt könnten unsere Nachkommen werden. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin-ernaehrung/lebenserwartung-steigt-so-alt-koennten-unsere-nachkommen-werden-14889722.html. Zugegriffen: 5. Apr. 2020

  2. 2.

    Batra A, Lindinger P (2013) Tabakabhängigkeit. Suchtmedizinische Reihe, Bd. 2. Deutsche Haupstelle für Suchtfragen, Hamm

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Carpenter MJ et al (2017) A naturalistic, randomized pilot trial of e‑cigarettes: uptake, exposure, and behavioral effects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 26(12):1795–1803

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kotz D, Batra A, Kastaun S (2020) Rauchstoppversuche und genutzte Entwöhnungsmethoden. Dtsch Arztebl Int 117(1–2):7–13

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    CDC (2016) E‑cigarette use among youth and young adults: a report of the surgeon general

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    McNeill A et al (2019) Vaping in England: an evidence update february 2019. A report commissioned by public health England. Public Health England, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    McNeill A et al (2019) E‑cigarette regulation in the United States and the united kingdom: two countries divided by a common language. Am J Public Health 109(11):e26–e27

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    BBC (2019) E‑cigarettes: how safe are they? https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48770808. Zugegriffen: 21. März 2019

  9. 9.

    McNeill A et al (2018) Evidence review of ecigarettes and heated tobacco products 2018. A report commissioned by public health England. Public Health England, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    McNeill A et al (2015) E‑cigarettes: an evidence updat—a report commissioned by public health England

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Drogenbeauftragte (2019) Drogen- und Suchtbericht. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit BMGS, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Eaton DL, Kwan LY, Stratton K (Hrsg) (2018) Public health consequences of e‑cigarettes. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC)

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    D’Ruiz CD, Graff DW, Yan XS (2015) Nicotine delivery, tolerability and reduction of smoking urge in smokers following short-term use of one brand of electronic cigarettes. BMC Public Health 15:991

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lampert T, Hoebel J (2019) Socioeconomic differences in health and need for care among the elderly. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 62(3):238–246

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (2008) Fakten zum Rauchen: Tabakrauch – ein Giftgemisch. http://www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/download/Publikationen/FzR/FzR_Giftgemisch.pdf. Zugegriffen: 8. Mai 2020

  16. 16.

    Farsalinos KE et al (2015) Nicotine levels and presence of selected tobacco-derived toxins in tobacco flavoured electronic cigarette refill liquids. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(4):3439–3452

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Farsalinos KE et al (2015) Evaluation of electronic cigarette liquids and aerosol for the presence of selected inhalation toxins. Nicotine Tob Res 17(2):168–174

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Farsalinos KE, Gillman G (2017) Carbonyl emissions in e‑cigarette aerosol: a systematic review and methodological considerations. Front Physiol 8:1119

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Farsalinos KE et al (2017) E‑cigarettes emit very high formaldehyde levels only in conditions that are aversive to users: a replication study under verified realistic use conditions. Food Chem Toxicol 109(1):90–94

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    McNeill A et al (2018) Evidence review of e‑cigarettes and heated tobacco products 2018—a report commissioned by public health England

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Goniewicz ML et al (2014) Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control 23(2):133–139

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    DKFZ (2020) E‑Zigaretten – Gesundheitsgefährdung/Regulierung. https://www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/E-Zigaretten.html. Zugegriffen: 21. März 2020

  23. 23.

    Hajek P et al (2020) Nicotine delivery and users’ reactions to Juul compared with cigarettes and other e‑cigarette products. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Reilly SM et al (2019) Free radical, carbonyl, and nicotine levels produced by Juul electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res 21(9):1274–1278. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ratajczak A et al (2020) Heat not burn tobacco product—a new global trend: impact of heat—not-burn tobacco products on public health, a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(2):E409. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Simonavicius E et al (2019) Heat-not-burn tobacco products: a systematic literature review. Tob Control 28(5):582–594

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    BfR (2017) Vorläufige Risikobewertung von Tobacco Heating-Systemen als Tabakprodukte – Mitteilung Nr. 015/2017 des BfR vom 27. Juli 2017. https://mobil.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/vorlaeufige-risikobewertung-von-tobacco-heating-systemen-als-tabakprodukte.pdf. Zugegriffen: 21. März 2020

  28. 28.

    Adriaens K, Gucht DV, Baeyens F (2018) IQOS(TM) vs. e‑cigarette vs. tobacco cigarette: a direct comparison of short-term effects after overnight-abstinence. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(12):E2902. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ludicke F et al (2019) Effects of switching to a heat-not-burn tobacco product on biologically relevant biomarkers to assess a candidate modified risk tobacco product: a randomized trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 28(11):1934–1943

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jones L (2019) BBC-report: vaping: how popular are e‑cigarettes? https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44295336. Zugegriffen: 21. März 2020

  31. 31.

    Henrich P (2019) Umsatz mit E‑Zigaretten in Deutschland in den Jahren 2017 bis 2019. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/303409/umfrage/umsatz-mit-e-zigaretten-in-deutschland/. Zugegriffen: 21. März 2020

  32. 32.

    Bhatta DN, Glantz SA (2020) Association of e‑cigarette use with respiratory disease among adults: a longitudinal analysis. Am J Prev Med 58(2):182–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.07.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Bhatta DN, Glantz SA (2019) Electronic cigarette use and myocardial infarction among adults in the US population assessment of tobacco and health. J Am Heart Assoc 8(12):e12317

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    WHO (2020) E‑cigarettes. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/e-cigarettes-how-risky-are-they. Zugegriffen: 21. März 2020

  35. 35.

    Britton J, Hajek P, Hopkinson N (2020) Expert reaction to world health organisation Q&A on electronic cigarettes. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-world-health-organisation-qa-on-electronic-cigarettes/. Zugegriffen: 21. März 2020

  36. 36.

    Soneji S et al (2017) Association between initial use of e‑cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 171(8):788–797

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Selya AS et al (2018) Evaluating the mutual pathways among electronic cigarette use, conventional smoking and nicotine dependence. Addiction 113(2):325–333

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    King BA et al (2020) The EVALI and youth vaping epidemics—implications for public health. N Engl J Med 382(8):689–691

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Khouja JN et al (2020) Is e‑cigarette use in non-smoking young adults associated with later smoking? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Blount BC et al (2020) Vitamin E acetate in bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid associated with EVALI. N Engl J Med 382(8):697–705

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Mikosz CA et al (2020) Characteristics of patients experiencing rehospitalization or death after hospital discharge in a nationwide outbreak of e‑cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury—United States, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 68(5152):1183–1188

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Gordon T, Fine J (2020) Cornering the suspects in vaping-associated EVALI. N Engl J Med 382(8):755–756

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Suhling H, Welte T, Fuehner T (2020) Fallberichte von drei Patienten mit akuter Lungenschädigung nach Gebrauch von E‑Zigaretten. Dtsch Arztebl Int 117(11):177–182

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kannel WB et al (1979) An investigation of coronary heart disease in families. The Framingham offspring study. Am J Epidemiol 110(3):281–290

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Boyle P (2005) Tobacco smoking and the British doctors’ cohort. Br J Cancer 92(3):419–420

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Doll R, Hill AB (1956) Lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking; a second report on the mortality of British doctors. Br Med J 2(5001):1071–1081

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Doll SR (2000) Smoking and lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162(1):4–6

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Löwel H (2006) Koronare Herzkrankheit und akuter Myokardinfarkt. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Doll R et al (2005) Mortality from cancer in relation to smoking: 50 years observations on British doctors. Br J Cancer 92(3):426–429

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Geldmacher H et al (2008) The prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany. Results of the BOLD study. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 133(50):2609–2614

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    BZGA (2019) COPD und Rauchen – die wichtigsten Fakten

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    BZGA (2019) Welt-COPD-Tag: mehr Todesfälle durch COPD in Deutschland

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Pisinger C, Dossing M (2014) A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Prev Med 69:248–260

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    BfR (2019) Studie zu E‑Zigaretten: In Deutschland bislang keine bedrohliche Vergiftung durch „Dampfen“. https://www.bfr.bund.de/de/presseinformation/2019/51/studie_zu_e_zigaretten__in_deutschland_bislang_keine_bedrohliche_vergiftung_durch_dampfen-243322.html. Zugegriffen: 21. März 2020

  55. 55.

    Farsalinos K et al (2016) Effect of continuous smoking reduction and abstinence on blood pressure and heart rate in smokers switching to electronic cigarettes. Intern Emerg Med 11(1):85–94

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Farsalinos KE et al (2019) Is e‑cigarette use associated with coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction? Insights from the 2016 and 2017 national health interview surveys. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 10:2040622319877741

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Stephens WE (2017) Comparing the cancer potencies of emissions from vapourised nicotine products including e‑cigarettes with those of tobacco smoke. Tob Control. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Scott A et al (2018) Pro-inflammatory effects of e‑cigarette vapour condensate on human alveolar macrophages. Thorax 73(12):1161–1169

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Hancox RJ et al (2016) The effect of cigarette smoking on lung function in young adults with asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 194(3):276–284

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Tsai M et al (2019) Electronic versus combustible cigarette effects on Inflammasome component release into human lung. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 199(7):922–925

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Reinikovaite V et al (2018) The effects of electronic cigarette vapour on the lung: direct comparison to tobacco smoke. Eur Respir J 51(4):1701661. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01661-2017

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Przybyla RJ et al (2017) Electronic cigarette vapor alters the lateral structure but not tensiometric properties of calf lung surfactant. Respir Res 18(1):193

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Larcombe AN et al (2017) The effects of electronic cigarette aerosol exposure on inflammation and lung function in mice. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 313(1):L67–L79

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Boulay ME et al (2017) Acute effects of nicotine-free and flavour-free electronic cigarette use on lung functions in healthy and asthmatic individuals. Respir Res 18(1):33

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Lerner CA et al (2016) Electronic cigarette aerosols and copper nanoparticles induce mitochondrial stress and promote DNA fragmentation in lung fibroblasts. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 477(4):620–625

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Flouris AD et al (2013) Acute impact of active and passive electronic cigarette smoking on serum cotinine and lung function. Inhal Toxicol 25(2):91–101

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Garcia-Arcos I et al (2016) Chronic electronic cigarette exposure in mice induces features of COPD in a nicotine-dependent manner. Thorax 71(12):1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-208039

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Osei AD et al (2020) Association between e‑cigarette use and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by smoking status: behavioral risk factor surveillance system 2016 and 2017. Am J Prev Med 58(3):336–342

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Osei AD et al (2019) The association between e‑cigarette use and asthma among never combustible cigarette smokers: behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS) 2016 & 2017. BMC Pulm Med 19(1):180

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Wang MP et al (2016) Electronic cigarette use and respiratory symptoms in Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. JAMA Pediatr 170(1):89–91

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Kotz D, Kastaun S (2018) DEBRA – Deutsche Befragung zum Rauchverhalten | German Study on Tobacco Use. http://debra-study.info/wordpress/. Zugegriffen: 8. Mai 2020

  72. 72.

    Oelsner EC et al (2020) Lung function decline in former smokers and low-intensity current smokers: a secondary data analysis of the NHLBI pooled cohorts study. Lancet Respir Med 8(1):34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30276-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Pope CA 3rd et al (2009) Cardiovascular mortality and exposure to airborne fine particulate matter and cigarette smoke: shape of the exposure-response relationship. Circulation 120(11):941–948

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Osei AD et al (2019) Association between e‑cigarette use and cardiovascular disease among never and current combustible-cigarette smokers. Am J Med 132(8):949–954.e2

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Jackson SE et al (2020) Associations between dual use of e‑cigarettes and smoking cessation: a prospective study of smokers in England. Addict Behav 103:106230

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Brown J et al (2014) Real-world effectiveness of e‑cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation: a cross-sectional population study. Addiction 109(9):1531–1540

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Bennett JE et al (2015) The future of life expectancy and life expectancy inequalities in England and Wales: Bayesian spatiotemporal forecasting. Lancet 386(9989):163–170

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Vanderkam P et al (2016) Efficacy and security of electronic cigarette for tobacco harm reduction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Presse Med 45(11):971–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2016.05.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Leduc C, Quoix E (2016) Is there a role for e‑cigarettes in smoking cessation? Ther Adv Respir Dis 10(2):130–135

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Malas M et al (2016) Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: a systematic review. Nicotine Tob Res 18(10):1926–1936

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    El Dib R et al (2017) Electronic nicotine delivery systems and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems for tobacco smoking cessation or reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 7(2):e12680

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Erku DA et al (2019) Beliefs and self-reported practices of healthcare professionals regarding electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS): a mixed-methods systematic review and synthesis. Nicotine Tob Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntz046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Chido-Amajuoyi OG et al (2020) Characteristics of us adults attempting tobacco use cessation using e‑cigarettes. Addict Behav 100:106123

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Kalkhoran S, Chang Y, Rigotti NA (2019) E‑cigarettes and smoking cessation in smokers with chronic conditions. Am J Prev Med 57(6):786–791

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Hajek P et al (2019) A randomized trial of e‑cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Engl J Med 380(7):629–637

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Bullen C et al (2018) The effectiveness and safety of combining varenicline with nicotine e‑cigarettes for smoking cessation in people with mental illnesses and addictions: study protocol for a randomised-controlled trial. BMC Public Health 18(1):596

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Gentry S, Forouhi NG, Notley C (2019) Are electronic cigarettes an effective aid to smoking cessation or reduction among vulnerable groups? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Nicotine Tob Res 21(5):602–616

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Chung S et al (2019) Electronic cigarette vapor with nicotine causes airway mucociliary dysfunction preferentially via TRPA1 receptors. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 200(9):1134–1145. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201811-2087OC

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    NHS (2020) Using e‑cigarettes to stop smoking. http://www.nhs.uk/live-well/quit-smoking/using-e-cigarettes-to-stop-smoking/. Zugegriffen: 4. Apr. 2020

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dr. T. Hering.

Ethics declarations


T. Hering gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden vom Autor keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information


M. Wehling, Mannheim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hering, T. E-Zigaretten – toxikologisches Fiasko oder besser als kein Rauchstopp?. Internist 61, 634–643 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-020-00794-0

Download citation


  • Tabakabhängigkeit
  • E‑Zigaretten-Dampfen
  • Rauchentwöhnung
  • Tabakentwöhnung
  • Gateway-Hypothese


  • Tobacco use disorder
  • Vaping
  • Smoking cessation
  • Tobacco use cessation
  • Gateway hypothesis