CHAMGAP
VERIFIEDPassed the Codex final verification and publication gate. Evidence-verification cutoff: 2026-08-26. AI was used for research and drafting; the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, followed by blind grading, adversarial audit, and build validation. Methodology v0.8.
Verdict No. 2961 · Search date 2026-08-26 · Methodology v0.8

A 946-mL energy drink containing about 300-320 mg caffeine consumed within one hour,
does it really help with No adverse ECG or blood-pressure effect?

30-Second Summary
D
Evidence Grade D · 30 · Safety caution
One high-volume energy drink did not support the claim of no QTc or blood-pressure effect
Both energy drinks showed different QTc and blood-pressure trajectories from placebo. The four-hour trial did not test arrhythmia, hospitalization, or death.
What the
research shows
Grade D. In a 34-person crossover trial, maximum Bazett-corrected QTc change was +17.9±13.9 ms with drink A, +19.6±15.8 ms with drink B, and +11.9±11.1 ms with placebo; overall P=.005, A versus placebo P=.04, and B versus placebo P<.01. The no-problem claim was not supported.
What the
ads claim
This applies only to one high-volume exposure in healthy young adults. It cannot be extended to chronic use, one can or less, adolescents, patients, or medication users.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The exposure was 946 mL containing about 300-320 mg caffeine within one hour.
  • QTc measures delayed ventricular repolarization.
  • Arrhythmia, hospitalization, and death were not tested.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2961 · D 30
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

NCT03196908 enrolled 34 healthy adults aged 18-40 without cardiovascular disease, hypertension, QT prolongation, or regular medication use. Each consumed drinks A and B and placebo on separate days, with measurements every 30 minutes through 240 minutes. QTc-by-time and peripheral and central systolic- and diastolic-pressure-by-time interactions were all P<.001. The paper did not report 95% confidence intervals for between-condition differences. Power assumed a 10-ms QTc mean difference, but without an interval for a between-condition difference exceeding 10 ms this was not used as an exclusion threshold. The University of the Pacific supported the study; no energy-drink-company funding was reported. Sachin A. Shah disclosed prior expert-witness work in caffeine energy-drink litigation. Commercial drinks were prepared by investigators in identical containers.

02

Why this is classified as D (30)

A publicly supported trial found adverse QTc and pressure signals, but independent QTc replication is limited and the study was small and brief, giving D with 30 points.

Counterpoint. QTc prolongation is not the same as a demonstrated clinical arrhythmia.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Adverse placebo-controlled primary QTc result, limited independent QTc replication, and a 34-person four-hour design

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointSSurrogate marker - laboratory or imaging measures
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE-Harm increased in the trials
PrecisionC0The confidence interval leaves room for benefit

The scoring table and the verdict agree (D).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
No QTc or blood-pressure effectDQTc and blood-pressure trajectories differed from placebo.
Increased clinical arrhythmia?The four-hour trial did not test clinical arrhythmia.

Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate

AI was used for research and drafting. Blind grading, adversarial audit, and the methodology boundary rules were then reapplied before Codex performed the final evidence, grade, copy, and build checks. If a grade cannot be narrowed, both evidence positions and their reasons are published.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Randomized double-masked placebo-controlled crossover trial34Supported by the University of the Pacific; no energy-drink-company funding reportedBazett- and Fridericia-corrected QTcMaximum Bazett-QTc change: A +17.9±13.9 ms, B +19.6±15.8 ms, placebo +11.9±11.1 ms; overall P=.005Pivotal direct trial
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-26).

Shah SA, et al. Impact of High Volume Energy Drink Consumption on Electrocardiographic and Blood Pressure Parameters: A Randomized Trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e011318. PMID: 31137991.
checked
Fletcher EA, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of High-Volume Energy Drink Versus Caffeine Consumption on ECG and Hemodynamic Parameters. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e004448. PMID: 28446495.
checked
Research and draft: AI used · Cross-check: blind grading and adversarial audit
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Verification cutoff: 2026-08-26 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Harm of High-Volume Energy Drinks for QTc and Blood Pressure Evidence Grade D card
[Chamgap] Harm of High-Volume Energy Drinks for QTc and Blood Pressure — Evidence Grade D·30. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/energy/high-volume-energy-drink-qtc-blood-pressure-safety/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.