Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Effects of caffeinated versus decaffeinated energy shots on blood pressure and heart rate in healthy young volunteers.



Key Questions Addressed
1 For [population], is caffeine intake above [exposure dose], compared to intakes [exposure dose] or less, associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Effects of caffeinated versus decaffeinated energy shots on blood pressure and heart rate in healthy young volunteers.
Author AM Kurtz,J Leong,M Anand,AE Dargush,SA Shah,
Country
Year 2013
Numbers

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Cardiovascular Design
Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
What outcome is being evaluated in this paper? Cardiovascular
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the objective of the study (as reported by the authors)? To evaluate the effects of a caffeinated 5-hour Energy shot compared with a decaffeinated 5-hour Energy shot as assessed by changes in blood pressure and heart rate in healthy, nonhypertensive volunteers.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Provide a general description of the methods as reported by the authors. Information should be extracted based on relevance to the SR (i.e., caffeine related methods) Subjects were randomized to receive either the caffeinated 5-hour Energy shot or the decaffeinated 5-hour Energy shot; after a washout period of at least 6 days, subjects were given the alternate energy shot. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures were recorded for each subject at baseline and at 1, 3, and 5 hours after consumption of the energy shot. Heart rate, adverse effects, and energy levels were also assessed. We chose to compare the caffeinated 5-hour Energy and decaffeinated 5-hour Energy shots, as they are the most popular forms of energy shots available in both caffeinated and decaffeinated forms. Ingredients of the caffeinated and decaffeinated forms were compared (Table 1).12 Of note, the decaffeinated shot does not contain niacin or citicoline, but it does contain choline. In addition, although both forms contain caffeine, the decaffeinated label lists the amount of caffeine as 6 mg, whereas the regular (caffeinated) drink only lists caffeine as an ingredient (without the amount); the caffeine concentration has been reported to be anywhere between 138– 215 mg/1.9–fluid ounce bottle. No other differences are listed in the ingredients between the two forms as indicated by package labeling. As 5-hour Energy is typically consumed as a single 1.93–fluid ounce shot, we selected this as the study dose. The study investigator administered the product to every subject to ensure consumption of the entire 1.93 fluid ounces. All energy shots were obtained through a random vendor by using Amazon.com, and the outer plastic packaging was removed to yield a matching blinded product. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured by using a calibrated, automated blood pressure machine (Masimo SET Vital Sign Monitor; Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY). After an initial 10-minute rest period, blood pressure and heart rate were measured twice, 2 minutes apart, with the subject in a sitting position at baseline and at 1, 3, and 5 hours after energy shot consumption. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured in the same arm for each subject for all respective readings, and the two readings were averaged.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? 2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) Heart rate.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately). 2 Blood pressure (systolic and diastolic).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Clinical, physiological, other Physiological
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the study design? Controlled Trial
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Randomized or Non-Randomized? RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the diagnostics or methods used to measure the outcome? Objective
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Optional: Name of Method or short description Blood pressure and heart rate were measured by using a calibrated, automated blood pressure machine (Masimo SET Vital Sign Monitor; Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Caffeine (general)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Coffee, Chocolate, energy drink, gum, medicine/supplement, soda, tea, other? Energy drinks
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Measured or self reported? Measured
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Children, adolescents, adults, or pregnant included? Adults
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was the reference, comparison, or control group(s)? (e.g. high vs low consumption, number of cups, etc.) Decaffeinated 5-hour Energy Drink v. Caffeinated 5-hr Energy Drink
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the listed confounders or modifying factors as stated by the authors? (e.g. multi-variable components of models.  Copy from methods) Exclusion criteria consisted of blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or greater, current use of prescription or over-the- counter products, an allergy to 5-hour Energy products, pregnancy, and use of any energy drink or energy shot within the previous 7 days. A sample size of 20 subjects was based on an expected change of a mean _ SD of 4 _ 4 mm Hg in SBP (a = 0.05, 80% power). Analysis of variance was performed by comparing the timematched differences between the caffeinated and decaffeinated arms with the Bonferroni post hoc t test for pairwise comparisons. The maximum effect regardless of time was also compared with baseline by using a paired Student t test. All analyses were performed by using StatsDirect statistical software, version 2.7.8 (StatsDirect Ltd, Altrincham, U.K.). Randomization was performed by using an automated computer-generated code. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed when necessary.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? Not mentioned.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Refid 23722481
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the sources of funding? This study was funded by a University of the Pacific Internal Seed Grant.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons

No Results found.