[Question #9082] needle prick vs injection

36 months ago

hello doctors:

i have read that a woman in my city for pricked by a needle discarded on public transportation. this leads me to some questions about needle pricks.

i have read on other forums that

Blood on the surface area of a needle is exposed to the elements, therefore the virus cannot maintain its infectiousness. The exact time is irrelevant...the destruction of the virus begins immediately regardless of how many seconds or minutes it takes for the ENTIRE destruction process to be completed.

and here

This was a no risk of it. HIV is not transmitted through transfer from person to person on contaminated objects other than needle sticks in which the needle goes deep into tissue, drawing blood, and infected material is actually introduced/injected into the wound.

my question is if one is pricked by a needle and a drop of blood comes out, and that is the only exposure — is that a zero risk hiv risk event? that is, if the tip of a hollow needle for injection somehow has infected blood on or in the hollow tip is that zero risk it it pricks your skin and punctured slightly as long as it was not immediately coming out of someone’s vein? say three minutes or more after?

i hope this question makes sense and will help me understand what risks exist from needle pokes with very small punctures to the skin.

thank you

Edward W. Hook M.D.

36 months ago

Welcome to the Forum and thanks for your question. I'll be glad to comment.

The answer to this question requires one to distinguish between theoretical risk and actual risk. Within hospitals and clinical settings, if a person is stuck/pricked with a contaminated needle which has been use to either take blood or administer medication to a person with known, untreated HIV infection the standard practice is to administer post-exposure prophylaxis with anti-HIV medication. This is done due to an abundance of caution. The estimated risk of such an exposure to a KNOWN infected, UNTREATED (treatment makes infected persons non-infectious) is low- substantially less than 1% of such exposures lead to infection.

In the outside world however, the risk of incidental sticks of the sort you mention is far lower for the reasons you mention as well as the fact that most people do not have HIV or other blood borne infections .

I hope this information is helpful. EWH

---

36 months ago

thank you.

from what i referenced earlier it seems that you must inject fluids from a stylings in order to transmit hiv via any needle exposure or any kind deep into tissue or veins? is that correct? meaning a needle prick itself is NO RISK?

my question is that i keep an insulin needle in my desk at work. the only person that comes into my private office room are the trash emptying folks at night.

i had an insulin needle out of its packet in my desk drawer.

i took the needle out and pulled the plunger and then pricked my finger with the tip of the needle —i put the needle down and when forcing pressure a drip of blood come out of my finger. but i did not inject myself i don’t think. just a superficial poke. i can see a tiny black mark from when this happened.

if the needle had been found and used by the trash folks and put back in the drawer and then later this occurred is there any risk of hiv?

i use this example as in the streets of my city are lots of discarded or recently used needles. from what i’ve read the needle tip itself hollow or not is not a risk if you get poked — rather, injection of fluids in the syringe is absolutely required for hiv transmission to be possible?

36 months ago

i meant to say syringe not stylings.

again i reference something you wrote here i found from the search function.

i assume this applies universally to all accidental exposure to needles? no injection/depression of plunger ot syringe deep into tissue or veins means no risk of hiv if you get poked by a needle?

i hope i am phrasing this correctly i think you understand the distinction i’m trying to

make?

Edward W. Hook M.D.

36 months ago

Your summary is correct. I think you are worrying far more than need be. As I tried to indicate in my original response, the risk of the sort of exposure you describe is, for all practical purposes virtually zero although some would argue that it is theoretically [possible (in the same way that it is theoretically possible you'll be struck by lightening today) EWH---

36 months ago

thanks ok that helped.

so for my follow up:

with specific regard to my insulin needle fear incident i described in my office — the needle prick in my office does NOT require me testing for hiv? since i did it inject myself with anything? period.

and going forward use the rule: a prick in the environment however unlikely with a drop of blood; no risk no testing unless there is obvious and deep injection from the syringe

thanks for the help!

36 months ago

meaning.no medical need for testing due to my needle prick incident or ones like it it they occur?

36 months ago

meaning no risk event? thanks!

Edward W. Hook M.D.

36 months ago

As you know, we provide up to three responses to each client’s question. Your rapid fire follow-up questions have exhausted your follow-ups. Following this response the thread will be closed without further responses. In addition, further questions on this topic with may be deleted without a response. Straight to your final questions:

Your question is largely repetitive. The needle prick occurrence in your office with the insulin syringe was a no risk event. There is no testing required for that event and no reason for continuing concern.

Your summary statement regarding environmental exposure is, likewise, correct. Every occurrence is different but typically there is no need for testing regarding the sorts of events you are hypothesizing.

This completes this thread. I hope you will be able to move on without continuing concerns. There is no need for continuing concern. EWH

---

36 months ago

(too many type o-s!)

here is my recap of final questions:

(1)with specific regard to my insulin needle fear incident i described in my office — the needle prick in my office does NOT require me testing for hiv since i did not inject myself with anything even if someone played with or somehow used the needle? period. no risk event and no medical need o reason for testing for hiv?

(2) going forward use the rule: a prick in the environment however unlikely with a drop of blood; no risk no testing unless there is obvious and deep injection from the syringe?

phew. i think that’s it, thanks!

Edward W. Hook M.D.

36 months ago

Final response to what are clearly anxiety driven questions:

1. No.!!!

2. Correct

EWH

---