B J Azad et al, 2020. Effects of coffee consumption on arterial stiffness and endothelial function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, published online.

Print this page

ABSTRACT

Background:
Endothelial function (EF) and arterial stiffness (AS) are predictors of cardiovascular disease. As previous research concerning the effect of coffee intake on EF and AS was controversial, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize research.

Methods:
We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to find clinical trials investigating the effect of coffee intake on EF or AS up to March 2020.Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) between intervention and control groups for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Between study heterogeneity was estimated using Cochran’s Q and the I2-inconsistency index. Internal validity of included randomized trials was determined with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias.

Results:
Twenty-three articles were included for qualitative and 11 articles for quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs (nine articles) indicated a positive short-term (postprandial) effect of coffee intake on flow-mediated dilation (FMD) as a measure of EF (WMD: 1.93%[95% CI: 1.10-2.75]; I2= 97.9%). Meta-analysis of three long-term RCTs(two articles) found no such effect on FMD (WMD: -0.08% [-3.82 to 3.66]; I2= 61.4%).Most short-term information was from studies at low or unclear risk of bias, while the proportion of long-term information from studies at high risk of bias was considerable.

Conclusion:
The results from this meta-analysis suggest a beneficial short-term effect of coffee intake on EF as measured by FMD. Base on systematic review results acute and chronic intake of coffee products may exerts an unfavorable effect on AS. While we found no such effect concerning long-term coffee intake, this latter finding must be interpreted cautiously as the number of studies were low and included studies had a considerable risk of bias.

 

This information is intended for Healthcare professional audiences.
Please consider the environment before printing.