4.6 Article

Caffeine intake reduces incident atrial fibrillation at a population level

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 1055-1062

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2047487318772945

关键词

Arrhythmias; atrial fibrillation; epidemiology; caffeine; genetics; CYP1A2; risk factors

资金

  1. Veneto region programmes [RSF 811-98, 178-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The general belief is that caffeine increases the risk of hyperkinetic arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of chronic caffeine intake on incident atrial fibrillation in general population. Design and methods A population cohort of 1475 unselected men and women observed for 12 years and left free to intake food or beverages containing caffeine was studied. Subjects were stratified into tertiles of caffeine intake both in the whole cohort and after genotyping for the -163C>A polymorphism of the CYP1A2 gene, regulating caffeine metabolism. Results In the whole cohort, the 12-year incidence of atrial fibrillation was significantly lower in the third (2.2%) than in the first (10.2%) or second (5.7%) tertile of caffeine intake (P<0.001). The same trend was observed in all genotypes; the apparently steeper reduction of atrial fibrillation in slow caffeine metabolisers found at univariate analysis was proved wrong by multivariate Cox analysis. Age, chronic pulmonary disease, history of heart failure and of coronary artery disease, and systolic blood pressure - but not the genotype or the caffeinexCYP1A2 interaction term - were significant confounders of the association between incident atrial fibrillation and being in the third tertile of caffeine intake (hazard ratio 0.249, 95% confidence intervals 0.161-0.458, P<0.01). Conclusions A higher caffeine intake (>165mmol/day or>320mg/day) is associated with a lower incidence of atrial fibrillation in the 12-year epidemiological prospective setting based on the general population.

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