Caffeine consumption and incident atrial fibrillation in women

Center for Arrhythmia Prevention, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Womenrsquos Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Impact Factor: 6.77). 09/2010; 92(3):509-14. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2010.29627
Source: PubMed


It is somewhat controversial whether caffeine consumption is associated with an increased risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF).
We prospectively assessed the relation between caffeine intake and incident AF.
A total of 33,638 initially healthy women who participated in the Women's Health Study and who were gt 45 y of age and free of cardiovascular disease and AF at baseline were prospectively followed for incident AF from 1993 to 2 March 2009. All women provided information on caffeine intake via food-frequency questionnaires at baseline and in 2004.
During a median follow-up of 14.4 y (interquartile range: 13.8-14.8 y), 945 AF events occurred. Median caffeine intakes across increasing quintiles of caffeine intake were 22, 135, 285, 402, and 656 mg/d, respectively. Age-adjusted incidence rates of AF across increasing quintiles of caffeine intake were 2.15, 1.89, 2.01, 2.24, and 2.04 events, respectively, per 1000 person-years of follow-up. In Cox proportional hazards models updated in 2004 by using time-varying covariates, the corresponding multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) were 1.0, 0.88 (0.72, 1.06), 0.78 (0.64, 0.95), 0.96 (0.79, 1.16), and 0.89 (0.73, 1.09) (P for linear trend: 0.45). None of the individual components of caffeine intake (coffee, tea, cola, and chocolate) were significantly associated with incident AF.
In this large cohort of initially healthy women, elevated caffeine consumption was not associated with an increased risk of incident AF. Therefore, our data suggest that elevated caffeine consumption does not contribute to the increasing burden of AF in the population. This trial was registered at as NCT00000479.

  • Source
    • "When RRs were not available from the published article, they were computed based on the exposure distributions. Where RRs are provided corresponding to caffeine consumption, we get an estimated RR with regard to coffee drinking with the conversion method adopted from the study conducted by Conen et al. [39]. To combine RRs on the same scale in the pooled analysis, we prefer to calculate the study-specific RR for 1 cup per day increment of coffee consumption. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent studies have indicated higher risk of fractures among coffee drinkers. To quantitatively assess the association between coffee consumption and the risk of fractures, we conducted this meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for prospective studies reporting the risk of fractures with coffee consumption. Quality of included studies was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa scale. We conducted a meta-analysis and a cumulative meta-analysis of relative risk (RR) for an increment of one cup of coffee per day, and explored the potential dose-response relationship. Sensitivity analysis was performed where statistical heterogeneity existed. We included 10 prospective studies covering 214,059 participants and 9,597 cases. There was overall 3.5% higher fracture risk for an increment of one cup of coffee per day (RR = 1.035, 95% CI: 1.019-1.052). Pooled RRs were 1.049 (95% CI: 1.022-1.077) for women and 0.910 (95% CI: 0.873-0.949) for men. Among women, RR was 1.055 (95% CI: 0.999-1.114) for younger participants, and 1.047 (95% CI: 1.016-1.080) for older ones. Cumulative meta-analysis indicated that risk estimates reached a stabilization level (RR = 1.035, 95% CI: 1.019-1.052), and it revealed a positive dose-response relationship between coffee consumption and risk of fractures either for men and women combined or women specifically. This meta-analysis suggests an overall harm of coffee intake in increasing the risk of fractures, especially for women. But current data are insufficient to reach a convincing conclusion and further research needs to be conducted.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2012
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Linear-feedback shift registers (LFSRs) are often used to compact test responses. Prior analyses, based on statistically-independent error models, have predicted that aliasing probability 'converges' to 2/sup -k/ for LFSR polynomials of degree k, and that primitive polynomials perform better than nonprimitive polynomials. This paper presents the first statistical results based on full fault simulation that confirm these predictions. However, the average aliasing probability is not by itself a useful measure of the loss of fault detection information; the authors introduce an upper confidence limit (UCL) for the loss of fault coverage. The 'ideal' UCL is shown to match closely the empirically-derived UCL.< >
    Preview · Conference Paper · May 1992

  • No preview · Article · Oct 2005 · Annales d Endocrinologie
Show more