4.6 Review

Caffeine Intake and Atrial Fibrillation Incidence: Dose Response Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 448-454

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2013.12.026

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. National Basic Research Program of China
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology, China [2011BAI09B03, 2011BAI11B03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The association between habitual caffeine intake with incident atrial fibrillation (AF) was unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the association between chronic exposure of caffeine and the risk of AF and to evaluate the potential dose-response relation. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to November 2013 and references of relevant retrieved articles. Prospective cohort studies were included with relative risk (RR) or hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AF according to coffee/caffeine intake. Results: Six prospective cohort studies with 228,465 participants were included. In the primary meta-analysis, caffeine exposure was weakly associated with a reduced risk of AF (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01; P = 0.07; I-2 = 73%). In subgroup analyses, pooled results from studies with adjustment of potential confounders showed an 11% reduction for low doses (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.99, P = 0.032; I-2 = 30.9%, P = 0.227) and 16% for high doses (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94, P = 0.002; I-2 = 24.1%, P = 0.267) of caffeine consumption in AF risk. An inverse relation was found between habitual caffeine intake and AF risk (P for overall trend = 0.015; P for nonlinearity = 0.27) in dose-response meta-analysis and the incidence of AF decreased by 6% (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99) for every 300 mg/d increment in habitual caffeine intake. Conclusions: It is unlikely that caffeine consumption causes or contributes to AF. Habitual caffeine consumption might reduce AF risk.

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