• Users Online: 48
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
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


1 Private Academic Consultant, Bangkok, Thailand
2 Department of Community Medicine, Dr. D. Y. Patil University, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission26-Nov-2021
Date of Decision15-Dec-2021
Date of Acceptance05-Jan-2022
Date of Web Publication29-Mar-2022

Correspondence Address:
Pathum Sookaromdee
Private Academic Consultant, Bangkok 102200
Thailand
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jin.jin_57_21

Rights and Permissions

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 Top

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.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
2.
Smith DM, Weiss SL, White KM. Quantification of COVID-19 vaccine needle and syringe dead space volumes. Cureus 2021;13:e18969.  Back to cited text no. 2
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed108    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded11    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]