Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Effect of caffeinated versus noncaffeinated energy drinks on central blood pressures.



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 Effect of caffeinated versus noncaffeinated energy drinks on central blood pressures.
Author JK Phan,SA Shah,
Country
Year 2014
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 caffeinated energy shots compared with noncaffeinated energy shots as assessed by changes in peripheral and central hemodynamic parameters in healthy subjects.
  • 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) Methods: This was a double-blind, cross-over pilot study approved by the University of the Pacific institutional review board. Ten healthy volunteers between the ages of 18–40 years were randomized to consume either a caffeinated energy shot (215 mg caffeine)23 or a noncaffeinated energy shot (6 mg of caffeine)23 (5-hr Energy; Living Essentials, LLC; Farmington Hills, MI, USA). After a 6-day minimum washout period, participants consumed the alternate energy shot. Study participants were excluded for peripheral blood pressures of 140/80 mm Hg or greater, presence of comorbid conditions, use of any prescription or over-the-counter drugs, self-reported allergy to the energy shot or any of its components, or participation in previous energy-drink studies conducted at our center. Women who were pregnant or planning to become pregnant were also excluded. Peripheral blood pressure was measured using a standard automated blood pressure device (Masimo SET Vital Sign Monitor; Welch Allyn; Skaneateles Falls, NY, USA). Central hemodynamic parameters were assessed with the SphygmoCor PWA system (AtCor Medical Pty Ltd, West Ryde, Australia). SphygmoCor is a validated system that uses applanation tonometry to noninvasively translate a radial pressure waveform taken at the wrist to an aortic pressure waveform. End points examined included peripheral systolic blood pressure (SBP), peripheral diastolic blood pressure (DBP), peripheral PP, heart rate, central SBP, central DBP, central PP, augmentation pressure, augmentation Index (Aix), P1 height, PP amplification ratio, ejection duration (ED), and the Buckberg Subendocardial Viability Ratio (SEVR). Aix, augmentation pressure, and ejection duration were corrected by a heart rate of 75 beats/minute.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many outcome-specific endpoints are evaluated? 6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the (or one of the) endpoint(s) evaluated? (Each endpoint listed separately) Blood pressure (Peripheral and central SBP, DBP, pulse pressure [PP], pulse pressure amplification ratio)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately). 2 Heart rate
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).3 Augmentation pressure; Augmentation index (Aix)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).4 P1 height
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).5 Ejection duration (ED)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
List additional health endpoints (separately).6 Buckberg subendocardial viability ratio
  • 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 Peripheral blood pressure was measured using a standard automated blood pressure device (Masimo SET Vital Sign Monitor; Welch Allyn; Skaneateles Falls, NY, USA). Central hemodynamic parameters were assessed with the SphygmoCor PWA system (AtCor Medical Pty Ltd, West Ryde, Australia). SphygmoCor is a validated system that uses applanation tonometry to noninvasively translate a radial pressure waveform taken at the wrist to an aortic pressure waveform.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Caffeine (general)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Coffee, Chocolate, energy drink, gum, medicine/supplement, soda, tea, other?
  • 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.) Caffeinated vs. noncaffeinated 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) Study participants were excluded for peripheral blood pressures of 140/80 mm Hg or greater, presence of comorbid conditions, use of any prescription or over-the-counter drugs, self-reported allergy to the energy shot or any of its components, or participation in previous energy-drink studies conducted at our center. Women who were pregnant or planning to become pregnant were also excluded. A paired student’s t test between the two study arms was performed for all continuous data with statistical significance defined as a p of 0.05 or less. Change from baseline was calculated and compared between the two intervention arms. Data are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed using the last observation carried forward methodology for missing data.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What conflicts of interest were reported? Not discussed.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Refid 24644139
  • 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.