First, the likelihood of actually contracting HCV in that manner is statistically small, probably less than 1%.
Second, and possibly because of the small size of the innoculum inherent in this manner of transmsion, it may take weeks to develop detectable HCV RNA and many months to develop detectable antibody (some may not do this for 9-12 months). I generally test people exposed in this manner at time 0, 3, 6 and 12 months.
i'm sorry i totally disagree, all is it takes is just 1 time 2 b stuck by a dirty needle 2 contract hcv or any other disease. beleive i know thats all it took 4 me, 1 blood transfusion with dirty blood! i also new someone that got ahold of a dirty needle & contracted hcv, she died 3 yrs. ago @ age 42. i'm sorry but i'm not trying 2 scare u, these r just the facts! good luck, & god bless elizabeth
Hmmm,,,,good question! I would think that if you were stuck by a needle that was tainted, that the hep if you contracted would show up pretty quick. I could be wrong but once in bloodstream,,,it multiplies fast. Get tested and don't take it lightly,,Good Luck!
Working enviorment (*can't spell anymore) who cares!
Any way if sharing needles for drug use thats one thing, but working as a nurse and a finger stick from a hep c pt. I was told was to be very unlikely, but still you need to be tested to be safe. Sonic says 1 % ,I was told 10% and very unlikely.
as i write this it is with healthcare professional in mind, but i wonder, if someone is stuck with a known contamination of hcv, is there no protocol but to wait and watch? for example, couldn't a person take a short course of tx?
anyone ever hear of something like that?
Again, I am NOT saying it shouldn't be taken seriously; on the contrary, as I said I routinely follow up all people who have been "stuck" for over a year with serial testing. I do agress that if acute HCV is detected in this was that acute interferon / ribavirin therapy SHOULD be instituted and (as discussed in Replicative homeostasis III http://www.virologyj.com/content/4/1/29), clearance rates for those who have acute HCV treated urgently exceed 90% FOR ALL GENOTYPES.
However, needlestick accidents (meaning, transmission of viruses by hypodermic or intravenous needles that have been used on other patients) is QUITE different from transmission by transfusion of contaminated blood or blood products. In this latter situation, infection is virtually universal. In true needlestick accidents, while transmission obviously does occur, and may cause rapid seroconversion and development of significant hepatitis, this is actually a very rare event. For a start, most needlstick accidents (and in many countries, including three where I have worked, reporting this and investigating it in the manner I have described above is a LEGAL requirement, and hence there are accurate statistics on which to base decision making) occur when the original patient on whom the contaminated needles were used are uninfected by known viruses; the point prevalence of hepatitis carriage within hospitals (the situation that this issue most commonly arises) is less than 5%, therefore the probability of needlestick transmission, right off the bat, is less than 1:20. What about from KNOWN cariiers?
Large studies of the risk of transmsiion of HCV from KNOWN HCV positive individuals have been carried out (see references below) and in the biggest of these (Chung et al in Japan), the risk of HCV transmission was less then 1:250 incidents needlsticks from individuals PROVEN to have HCV. In otherwords, the event is rare. I am not downplaying its importance (obviously, infecting healthcare workers in this way IS a MAJOR concern); but it is, STATISTICALLY, very rare. But you should still be careful.
1. Hasan F, Askar H, Al Khalidi J, Al Shamali M, Al Kalaoui M, Al Nakib B: Lack of transmission of hepatitis C virus following needlestick accidents. Hepatogastroenterology 1999, 46:1678-1681.
2. Hamid SS, Farooqui B, Rizvi Q, Sultana T, Siddiqui AA: Risk of transmission and features of hepatitis C after needlestick injuries. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999, 20:63-64.
3. Chung H, Kudo M, Kumada T, Katsushima S, Okano A, Nakamura T, Osaki Y, Kohigashi K, Yamashita Y, Komori H, Nishiuma S: Risk of HCV transmission after needlestick injury, and the efficacy of short-duration interferon administration to prevent HCV transmission to medical personnel. J Gastroenterol 2003, 38:877-879.
CDC stated recently that the rick of getting hep.C is 1.8% and can range up to 10% ,factors that make it high up to 10% is the bore needles sticks and no gloves. still its doccumented by many studies over the pub med that the rick is low and not so common. but you have to be super carful in handling that virus bcz low % does not mean no infection and remeber preventioin is the best treatment.
A stick injury is different indeed,no1 should say a needle stick injury is the same as swirting the virus directly into ur veins,but yes still a chance to catch the virus with a ***** of a dirty needle but the odds of that happening are a lot less that the transfusion and injecting it i have heard around 5% but depending on different circumstances.
i personally know 3 people in my home town who did not catch it from a needle stick injury.
-1 was a nurse,she had gloves on,and by her own fault she pricked herself whilst giving pt insulin shot...she put the lid back on the syringe and it went thru the lid so she had gloves and a lid protecting her,but she is trained to put the needles into the sharps containers not put the lid on it afterwards so thats why it was her fault.
The other 2 were just careless drug users.1 got pricked by some1 walkin into them with there syringe..hence he had a thick jumper on.The other pricked himself on his girlfreinds syringe while he was trying to help her inject herself,i actually think he had gloves on too(not sure) cos he new she had hepc and he would have been extra careful knowing that.
I would be extra careful even if u have gloves on or not cos,there is a risk but just not as high as the injecting and transfusions etc.
im pretty sure iv heard and read that 6 months is the waiting period after a exposure...but maybe some are longer i dont know,id get tested even after a yr if it was me just to be sure cos but thats just me.goodluck...hope u dont have it
hi there i been stocked by e insulin needle in my finger after i gave a hep C 50 yrs pt addicted to alcohol.. hes test was 1060 i think that was the number of virus , i didn't wear gloves and no blood was in the syringe and i sqweez my finger also hand washing with alcohol , am scared if i told any one i will lose my job don't know what to do ? and when i should have the test .. and if i didnt done the first test is it a big deal after ?
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.