4.4 Article

Cardiovascular effects of caffeine in men and women

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 93, Issue 8, Pages 1022-1026

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2003.12.057

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 32050, HL 07640, HL 32050-S2] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Caffeine increases blood pressure (BP). In men, acute BP elevations after caffeine intake are due to an increase in vascular resistance, with no change in cardiac output. The hemodynamic effects of caffeine have not been studied in women. Accordingly, BP and hemodynamic responses to caffeine were measured in a double-blind trial comparing age-matched men and women at rest and during mental stress. Caffeine (3.3 mg/kg, equivalent to 2 to 3 cups of brewed coffee) or placebo was given to separate groups of women (n = 21 and 21) and men (n = 16 and 19) (mean ages 29 and 27 years, respectively). BP, cardiac output, and vascular resistance were observed at rest, during a stressful public-speaking simulation, reading aloud, and recovery. Caffeine caused nearly identical systolic and diastolic BP elevations in women (4.5 and 3.3 mm Hg, respectively) and men (4.1 and 3.8 mm Hg, respectively). Men given caffeine versus placebo showed the expected elevation in vascular resistance throughout the remainder of the protocol (p <0.001), with no difference in cardiac output. In contrast, women responded to caffeine with increases in stroke volume (p <0.001) and cardiac output (p <0.001), with no difference in vascular resistance from women taking placebo. Men and women have similar BP responses to caffeine, but the BP responses may arise from different hemodynamic mechanisms. Women who consume a dietary dose of caffeine showed an increase in cardiac output, whereas men showed increased vascular resistance. (C) 2004 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available