4.6 Article

Risk of atrial fibrillation associated with coffee intake: Findings from the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health study

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 922-930

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1177/2047487315624524

关键词

Epidemiology; nutrition; arrhythmias; clinical electrophysiology; drugs

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL-115623]
  2. European Research Council (ERC)
  3. EU [281760]
  4. Harvard Catalyst \ The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health) [KL2 TR001100]
  5. Danish Cancer Society
  6. Danish Council for Strategic Research (Aalborg AF-Study Group)
  7. Harvard Catalyst \ The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center (National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health) [KL2 TR001100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background There have been discrepant findings on whether coffee consumption is associated with the rate of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results We used data on 57,053 participants (27,178 men and 29,875 women) aged 50-64 years in the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health study. All participants provided information on coffee intake via food-frequency questionnaires at baseline. Incident AF was identified using nationwide registries. During a median follow-up of 13.5 years, 3415 AF events occurred. Compared with no intake, coffee consumption was inversely associated with AF incidence, with multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.15) for more than none to <1 cup/day, 0.88 (95% CI 0.71-1.10) for 1 cup/day, 0.86 (95% CI 0.71-1.04) for 2-3 cups/day, 0.84 (95% CI 0.69-1.02) for 4-5 cups/day, 0.79 (95% CI 0.64-0.98) for 6-7 cups/day and 0.79 (95% CI 0.63-1.00) for >7 cups/day (p-linear trend=0.02). Conclusions In this large population-based cohort study, higher levels of coffee consumption were associated with a lower rate of incident AF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据