|
 
 |
| LETTER TO EDITOR |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 4
| Issue : 1 | Page : 48 |
|
In-vial exhaust method versus conventional exhaust for injection of COVID-19 vaccine: Correspondence
Pathum Sookaromdee1, Viroj Wiwanitkit2
1 Private Academic Consultant, Bangkok, Thailand
2 Department of Community Medicine, Dr. D. Y. Patil University, Pune, Maharashtra, India
| Date of Submission | 26-Nov-2021 |
| Date of Decision | 15-Dec-2021 |
| Date of Acceptance | 05-Jan-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 29-Mar-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
Pathum Sookaromdee
Private Academic Consultant, Bangkok 102200
Thailand
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/jin.jin_57_21
How to cite this article:
Sookaromdee P, Wiwanitkit V. In-vial exhaust method versus conventional exhaust for injection of COVID-19 vaccine: Correspondence. J Integr Nurs 2022;4:48 |
How to cite this URL:
Sookaromdee P, Wiwanitkit V. In-vial exhaust method versus conventional exhaust for injection of COVID-19 vaccine: Correspondence. J Integr Nurs [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 28];4:48. Available from: https://www.journalin.org/text.asp?2022/4/1/48/341123 |
Dear Editor,
We would like to share ideas on “Comparison of in-vial exhaust method versus conventional exhaust method in the injection of COVID-19 vaccine.”[1] Xu et al.[1] concluded that “Implementing the in-vial exhaust method in the vaccine injection can effectively reduce the incidence of solution spillage, reduce nucleic acid contamination, and ensure that the vaccine is injected at the prescribed dose and application value.[1]” We agree that in-vial method might be appropriate for injection of vaccine. However, an important factor for the success of any method is experience of practitioner. Attempt to reduce vaccine waste is good but we should concern on the possible contamination as well. Whether the in-vial exhaustion can result in a contamination or not is an issue for further investigation. Finally, quantitation accuracy is another important topic. How the two different techniques relate to syringe dead space is an interesting issue for further study.[2]
A reply from authors Xu et al.[1] of the commented article: In practice, we found that one of the important advantages of the in-vial exhaust method is that it can prevent the vaccine from being spilled during exhaust due to technical errors which may be caused by operator inexperience. In addition to the waste caused by spilled vaccine, spillage of vaccine solution causes the “nucleic acid contamination” problem, that is, though the inactivated vaccine has lost its pathogenicity and infectivity, the vaccine-induced nucleic acid testing positive causes unnecessary panic and waste of human and financial resources when dealing with it, which is worthy of attention. In addition, the improvement and innovation of injection methods to save the vaccine and ensure the injection dose are a worthy direction, and we will carry out further research and exploration in the future. We also agree that the relationship of different techniques to syringe dead space is an interesting issue.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | |  |
| 1. | Xu J, Zhi H, Li Y, et al. Comparison of in-vial exhaust method versus conventional exhaust method in the injection of COVID-19 vaccine. J Integr Nurs 2021;3:106-9.  [Full text] |
| 2. | Smith DM, Weiss SL, White KM. Quantification of COVID-19 vaccine needle and syringe dead space volumes. Cureus 2021;13:e18969. |
|
Search Pubmed for