Quick Dive Quick Dive

Quick Dive: Caffeine and Cardiovascular Disease

In our "Quick Dive" series, the authors of publications from medical societies summarise the most important information and results of the respective publication. This time we dive into:

Caffeine and Cardiovascular Disease

A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

20 July 2026 | Written by: Gregory M. Marcus, Frank B. Hu, Rob M. van Dam, Marilyn C. Cornelis, Thomas A. Dewland, JungHee Kang, Susanna C. Larsson, Robert L. Page, Niyati Parekh

By:

Martin Nölke

HERZMEDIZIN editorial team

 

2026-07-30

Image source (image above): vovan / Shutterstock.com (edited)

5 questions for the first author

Prof Gregory M. Marcus, University of California, San Francisco, USA

What is the reason for and aim of the publication?

 

This Scientific Statement was produced in order to summarize the latest and best evidence regarding caffeine and cardiovascular disease. The primary goal was to inform the public, scientists, and clinicians about the results of related research, while highlighting limitations of available studies and identifying priorities for future research.

 

What are the most important take-home messages?

 

  1. The majority of research on caffeine and cardiovascular disease has important limitations to recognize. First, most of the research on the topic has focused on caffeinated coffee, presumably and simply because this is the most commonly consumed caffeinated substance. Therefore, it is difficult if not impossible to fully disentangle effects that might be due to caffeine itself versus other constituents in coffee. Second, most of the research is observational, meaning that, even given the most exhaustive and sophisticated adjustment for potential (known and measured) confounders, causality cannot be confidently inferred. Fortunately, more recent randomized trials have been conducted, including testing caffeinated coffee versus avoidance among ambulatory participants.
  2. The available evidence suggests that regular caffeine consumption, primarily in the form of coffee, is associated with lower risks of diabetes, myocardial infarctions, atrial fibrillation, and stroke. A recent randomized trial provided evidence that, among individuals that usually tolerate caffeinated coffee, assignment to caffeinated coffee resulted in less recurrent atrial fibrillation after cardioversion compared to assignment to avoid coffee and caffeine. Relationships between caffeine and hypertension are more complex, with the strongest evidence suggesting an inverse J-shaped association (higher blood pressure at lower amounts, and lower blood pressure among those consuming larger amounts of caffeine on a regular basis). There does appear to be a higher risk of heart failure among individuals that consume large amounts of caffeine (such as more than 4-5 cups of coffee per day) over a long period of time. Finally, a small, randomized crossover trial provided evidence that caffeine may increase premature ventricular contraction counts. 
  3. While the data on energy drinks and other products with high doses of caffeine or synthetic caffeinated products are much more scant, the available data suggest these substances may cause harm, specifically arrhythmias and heart failure. 
  4. It is important to emphasize that one size does not fit all when it comes to caffeine. Each individual metabolizes caffeine at their own speed, which can vary substantially between people. We all inherit multiple genetic variants that determine how fast (or slow) we metabolize caffeine, and our consumption habits can also influence metabolism (consuming caffeine on a regular basis will tend to ramp up the enzymes that break it down). 

 

What are the challenges in practical implementation – and possible solutions?

 

The heterogeneity of individual-level tolerance of caffeine and propensities to various diseases coupled with the many effects of caffeine makes providing a simple and universally applicable statement regarding the cardiovascular effects difficult. Future research can help us better predict individualized effects of caffeine, enabling more definitive statements that can be personalized appropriately. 

 

Which issues still need to be tackled that are not yet addressed by the paper?

 

There are many issues yet to be tackled, with original curiosity-driven research being critical to uncovering these important truths. For example, are there some populations in which caffeine consumption should actually be encouraged? Identifying those most likely to be harmed by caffeine, presumably those prone to ventricular arrhythmias and perhaps heart failure, would be useful. More research on energy drinks certainly needs to be conducted, which may then lead to evidence-based warnings if indeed harms are clearly observed. 

 

What further developments on the topic are emerging?

 

The complex relationships between genetics and metabolism of caffeine continue to be elucidated, which can help personalize recommendations that optimize health. 

Continue to the publication:

Caffeine and Cardiovascular Disease

Marcus GM, Hu FB, van Dam RM, et al. Caffeine and Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. Published online July 20, 2026. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001454

About the author

Prof Gregory M. Marcus

Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, is Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Associate Chief of Cardiology for Research at UCSF Health, and Endowed Professor of Atrial Fibrillation Research. His work focuses on arrhythmias, lifestyle exposures, digital health and wearable sensors. He is a Principal Investigator of the Health eHeart Study and Eureka and Associate Editor at JAMA.

Prof Gregory M. Marcus

Document types

Typical document types published by medical societies include:

ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines present the official ESC position on key topics in cardiovascular medicine. They are based on the assessment of published evidence and consensus by an independent group of experts. The documents include standardized, graded recommendations for clinical practice and indicate the level of supporting evidence.

ESC Pocket Guidelines provide a compact, practice-oriented summary of the full guideline, including all recommendation classes and levels of evidence.

Clinical Consensus Statements provide guidance for clinical management on topics not covered or not covered in sufficient detail in existing or upcoming ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines by evaluating scientific evidence or exploring expert consensus in a structured way. 

Scientific Consensus Statements interpret scientific evidence and provide a summary position on the topic without specific advice for clinical practice.

Statements outline and convey the organisation’s position or policy on non-medical issues such as education, advocacy and ethical considerations.

ESC Quality Indicators enable healthcare providers to develop valid and feasible metrics to measure and improve the quality of cardiovascular care and describe, in a specific clinical situation, aspects of the process of care that are recommended (or not recommended) to be performed.

 

To the overview page Quick Dives

 

To the overview page International Content

Related news

Public health expert Barry R. Davis discusses The Preventioneers, why societies ignore warning signs, and how prevention can save lives.

EACVI scientific statement on the implementation of cardiovascular imaging in clinical trials. Presented by Dr E. Surkova.

ACC Journal Club – TRILUMINATE, TRISCEND II and TRI.FR from an interventional cardiology perspective. With Prof. M. Price (US) and Prof. T. Geisler (EU).