Chronic pancreatitis is commonly associated with heavy alcohol use and cigarette smoking, though many cases of chronic pancreatitis are idiopathic. Energy drink consumption has been on the rise over the last decade, with an adverse health risk profile including gastrointestinal symptoms such as dyspepsia, reflux, and gastritis. There have been several case reports linking energy drink consumption to presentations of acute pancreatitis in adult patients. To our knowledge, the association between energy drinks and episodes of chronic pancreatitis flares has not been well studied. This article explores a case of chronic pancreatitis pain related to excessive energy drink consumption in an adult male patient. This study aims to shed light on energy drinks as a potential etiology of chronic pancreatitis flares, and emphasizes the importance of counseling patients on the potential risks of excessive energy drink consumption.

Excessive intake of energy drinks is increasingly realized to have a detrimental effect on platelet and endothelial functions with resultant hypercoagulable state and consequently increased risk of thrombosis. A 28-year-old man of African origin presented to the emergency department with an 8-hour history of retrosternal chest pain. His symptoms started 4 hours after consuming 5 cans (1250 cc) of an energy drink whose principal ingredients are caffeine, taurine, sugar, and glucuronolactone. His past medical and surgical history was unremarkable, and he had no apparent cardiovascular risk factor. Physical examination was unremarkable; however, electrocardiogram and echocardiogram showed features of anterolateral myocardial infarction (STEMI). Catheterization confirmed a 100% thrombotic occlusion of the proximal left anterior descending (LAD) artery and revascularization with a drug-eluting stent was successful. In conclusion, sudden onset of chest pain following energy drink consumption should raise an index of suspicion for acute coronary syndrome. With the preponderance of data suggesting increased incidence of energy drink-associated coronary events, it is prudent to advocate a limited consumption of such beverages.

Energy drink consumption has increased over the past decade. It is associated with several common side effects including diarrhea, heartburn, and dyspepsia. Energy drinks have been proposed as a rare but potential cause of acute pancreatitis. This paper investigates a unique case of energy drink-induced pancreatitis and further explores current literature on this topic. This study stresses the importance of asking all patients presenting with acute pancreatitis about their daily energy drink consumption, especially if the cause is unknown.

The basic components of energy drinks include caffeine, guarana, taurine, ginseng, and sugar. The excessive consumption of energy drinks has been associated with cardiovascular events such as tachycardia and myocardial infarction in the literature. We herein describe a 24-year-old man admitted to the emergency department. The patient\'s medical history and family history were unremarkable. It was, however, learned that he had consumed 8 to 10 cans of energy drinks per day (3.5-4 Lit/d) in the 2-week period leading to the hospital admission. Physical examination revealed bilateral diffuse rales and 2+ pretibial edema. Echocardiography showed a left ventricular ejection fraction of 25% with global left ventricular hypokinesia and dilated left ventricular dimensions. Coronary angiography demonstrated normal coronary arteries. On cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, the left ventricle was dilated, and the systolic function was reduced. No pathological enhancement was observed. This case report and many previous studies support a possible link between caffeinated energy drinks and cardiovascular events.

American adolescents consume more sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) than any other age group. Sports and energy drinks consumption among adolescents is higher than other SSBs. For sports drinks, there is uncertainty about their \"healthiness\" and also beliefs that these drinks may provide health benefits such as hydration, enhanced athletic performance, heightened mental alertness, and rapid recovery after exercise. Confusion about relative healthiness and expectations of health benefits suggest that factors that may encourage youth to avoid drinking sports and energy drinks, such as athletic status, psychological reactance, and SSB media literacy, may necessitate different approaches to promoting avoidance of sports drinks compared with avoidance of energy drinks. Using a nationally representative U.S. probability-based web panel augmented by a volunteer nonprobability-based web panel of 500 adolescent participants aged 14 to 18 years, we used the reasoned action approach to model intention to avoid sports and to avoid energy drinks. The result show there are similarities and differences in the determinants associated with adolescents\' avoidance of sports and energy drinks: attitudes and descriptive normative pressure are both related to increased avoidance for both types of drinks and perceived control over the avoidance behavior is positively associated for with intention to avoid for energy drinks. Sport identification, psychological reactance, and SSB media literacy also play a different role in the sports and energy drink models. Based on our results, the content of prevention messages in interventions to limit sports drinks will need to be quite different from those targeted at reducing energy drink consumption.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate probable association of dietary risk factors with childhood leukaemia.
METHODS: The case-control study was conducted at the Children Hospital, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan, from January to December 2017, and comprised children of either gender aged 2-12 years with recently diagnosed acute lymphocytic or acute myelocytic leukaemia An age and gender matched equal group of healthy children was taken as controls. Dietary-intake data was collected for six food groups, namely raw vegetables, fresh fruits, packed fruit juices, caffeinated drinks, junk foods, and processed/precooked food items. Frequency of the selected food group consumption was summarised in six categories: rarely/never, 1-3 days/week, 4-6 days/week, once daily, twice daily and thrice daily. Data was collected through interviews with the mothers using a pre-designed questionnaire, and was analysed using SPSS 21.
RESULTS: Of the 90 subjects, 45(50%) were in each of the two groups. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (p>0.05). Consumption of caffeinated drinks and junk food was significantly higher in cases (p=0.001) while controls showed significantly higher consumption of fresh fruits (p=0.0012). No significant difference was noted for consumption of vegetables, packed fruit juices and processed food between the groups (p> 0. 05 ).
CONCLUSIONS: Higher consumption of caffeinated drinks and junk food was observed in cases compared to controls.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, energy drinks are commonly consumed among adults. The side effects of these drinks are not well studied but consumers have reported multiple adverse events to the US Food and Drug Administration including acute kidney injury and acute hepatitis.
METHODS: A 62-year-old white woman presented with progressive weakness, fatigue, confusion, and delirium secondary to acute kidney injury and acute hepatitis associated with excessive energy drink use. Clinical improvement occurred with supportive care and discontinuation of energy drinks, with resolution of acute kidney injury and progressive improvement of liver function. The defined mechanism of injury is unknown but thought due to energy drink ingredients.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple cases of energy drink-induced acute kidney injury or acute hepatitis are reported in the literature but this case is the first to report them simultaneously. Ingredients and presumed doses to cause these events are outlined in this case report.

Energy drinks are widely used and very popular. They are touted as \"harmless\" energy boosters for use in professional, recreational and domestic settings. They are typically high in monosaccharides, and caffeine with other assorted products like ginseng. Careful study of the potential risks of their use is nonexistent while rigorous documentation of their touted energy boosting capacity is also meagre. We present the cautionary case of a 46-year-old Caucasian man with well-controlled type 2 diabetes and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who developed a toxic triad syndrome of gastritis, hepatitis and pancreatitis within 4 months of commencing daily consumption of 2-3 160z cans of the energy drink Monster Energy. His clinical symptoms and biochemical derangements promptly resolved with stopping the beverage. We discuss the potential risks inherent in unsupervised liberal consumption of energy drinks and the need for both caution and vigilance among clinicians and patients.

To describe and compare caffeinated energy drink adverse event (AE) report/exposure call data from the US Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition\'s Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) and the American Association of Poison Control Centers\' National Poison Data System (NPDS).
Cross-sectional.
Data were evaluated from US-based CAERS reports and NPDS exposure calls, including report/exposure call year, age, sex, location, single v. multiple product consumption, outcome, symptom, intentionality (NPDS only), report type, product name (CAERS only).
The analysis defined participants (cases) by the number of caffeinated energy drink products indicated in each AE report or exposure call. Single product cases included 357 from CAERS and 12 822 from NPDS; multiple product cases included 153 from CAERS and 931 from NPDS.
CAERS v. NPDS single product cases were older and more frequently indicated serious symptoms. Multiple v. single product consumers were older in both. In CAERS, unlike NPDS, most multiple product consumers were female. CAERS single v. multiple product reports cited higher proportions of life-threatening events, but less often indicated hospitalization and serious events. NPDS multiple v. single product cases involved fewer ≤5-year-olds and were more often intentional.
Despite limitations, both data sources contribute to post-market surveillance and improve understanding of public health concerns.