Evidence Hub

Acute effects of energy drink consumption on cardiovascular parameters in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Gualberto PIB, Benvindo VV, Waclawovsky G, Deresz LF

Nutrition reviews, 2024

15 citations

Abstract

CONTEXT: Energy drinks (EDs) are beverages that contain ingredients that may pose a risk to consumers' cardiovascular health. But current evidence is conflicting and warrants further investigation.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on studies that examined the acute effects of ED consumption on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), resting heart rate, cardiac output (CO), endothelial function, and QT/QTc interval in healthy adults.

DATA SOURCES: The databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, LILACS, Web of Science, SportDiscus, and the gray literature were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent evaluators screened 2014 studies and extracted relevant data from those selected for the analysis. A risk of bias assessment was also performed with the RoB 2 tool and a strength of evidence assessment was performed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA ANALYSIS: A total of 17 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. With regard to risk of bias, 11 studies were rated as having "some concerns" and 6 as "high risk of bias." The consumption of EDs increased SBP, DBP, and CO in different time frames. More pronounced effects were seen on SBP at 60-80 minutes (4.71 mmHg; 95% CI: 2.97-6.45; GRADE: moderate), DBP at 120 minutes (4.51 mmHg; 95% CI: 2.60-6.42; GRADE: low), and CO at 30-40 minutes after consumption (0.43 L; 95% CI: 0.08-0.77;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free