Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Apr 26;6(5):e004448.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.004448.

Randomized Controlled Trial of High-Volume Energy Drink Versus Caffeine Consumption on ECG and Hemodynamic Parameters

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized Controlled Trial of High-Volume Energy Drink Versus Caffeine Consumption on ECG and Hemodynamic Parameters

Emily A Fletcher et al. J Am Heart Assoc. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Caffeine in doses <400 mg is typically not considered arrhythmogenic, but little is known about the additional ingredients in energy drinks. We evaluated the ECG and blood pressure (BP) effects of high-volume energy drink consumption compared with caffeine alone.

Methods and results: This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled, crossover study in 18 young, healthy volunteers. Participants consumed either 946 mL (32 ounces) of energy drink or caffeinated control drink, both of which contained 320 mg of caffeine, separated by a 6-day washout period. ECG, peripheral BP, and central BP measurements were obtained at baseline and 1, 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours post study drink consumption. The time-matched, baseline-adjusted changes were compared. The change in corrected QT interval from baseline in the energy drink arm was significantly higher than the caffeine arm at 2 hours (0.44±18.4 ms versus -10.4±14.8 ms, respectively; P=0.02). The QTc changes were not different at other time points. While both the energy drink and caffeine arms raised systolic BP in a similar fashion initially, the systolic BP was significantly higher at 6 hours when compared with the caffeine arm (4.72±4.67 mm Hg versus 0.83±6.09 mm Hg, respectively; P=0.01). Heart rate, diastolic BP, central systolic BP, and central diastolic BP showed no evidence of a difference between groups at any time point. Post energy drink, augmentation index was lower at 6 hours.

Conclusions: The corrected QT interval and systolic BP were significantly higher post high-volume energy drink consumption when compared with caffeine alone. Larger clinical trials validating these findings and evaluation of noncaffeine ingredients within energy drinks are warranted.

Clinical trial registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02023723.

Keywords: arrhythmia; blood pressure; electrocardiography; electrophysiology; energy drink.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Baseline‐adjusted corrected QT interval with energy drink vs caffeine consumption (0.44±18.4 ms vs −10.4±14.8 ms at 2 hours, respectively; P=0.02). Data are reported as mean±standard error bars.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Baseline‐adjusted peripheral systolic blood pressures with energy drink (pED) and caffeine (pC) consumption (4.72±4.67 mm Hg vs 0.83±6.09 mm Hg at 6 hours, respectively; P=0.01). Baseline‐adjusted central systolic blood pressure measurements with energy drink (cED) vs caffeine (cC) consumption. Data are reported as mean±standard error bars.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 6 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Reissig CJ, Strain EC, Griffiths RR. Caffeinated energy drinks—a growing problem. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;99:1–10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arria AM, O'Brien MC. The “high” risk of energy drinks. JAMA. 2011;305:600–601. - PMC - PubMed
    1. The DAWN report. Substance Abuse and Mental Services Administration. January 10, 2013. Available at: http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/DAWN126/sr126-energy-drinks-use.pdf. Accessed November 27, 2015.
    1. Documents link more deaths to energy drinks. Center for Science in the Public Interest. June 25, 2014. Available at: http://www.cspinet.org/new/201406251.html. Accessed November 28, 2015.
    1. Goldfarb M, Tellier C, Thanassoulis G. Review of published cases of adverse cardiovascular events after ingestion of energy drinks. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:168–172. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

Feedback