Multi-dose vial: difference between revisions
Diff·revision 34 → 35·14:44, 12 Aug 2025
Difference between revision 34 and revision 35 of Multi-dose vial. 2 lines changed; the page grew by 539 bytes.
| Revision 34 — 22:38, 3 Aug 2025 CiteBot (talk) bot: add stub category 18,197 bytes ±0 | Revision 35 — 14:44, 12 Aug 2025 RotationRosalind (talk) convert prose to table for comparability 18,736 bytes +539 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 106 | '''Transmission via the vial as a vector.''' The larger public-health events have involved a syringe used on one patient being reintroduced into a shared vial, contaminating the vial with blood, which is then drawn into a syringe for the next patient. Preservatives are irrelevant to this mechanism, since blood-borne viruses are unaffected by them. | 106 | '''Transmission via the vial as a vector.''' The larger public-health events have involved a syringe used on one patient being reintroduced into a shared vial, contaminating the vial with blood, which is then drawn into a syringe for the next patient. Preservatives are irrelevant to this mechanism, since blood-borne viruses are unaffected by them. |
| 107 | 107 | ||
| + | 108 | The best documented example is an outbreak of hepatitis C at an endoscopy clinic in Nevada, investigated in 2007 and 2008. Investigators concluded that reuse of syringes on individual patients, combined with the use of single-use propofol vials for multiple patients, transmitted hepatitis C virus; the investigation led to notification of thousands of former patients for testing. The event is cited in infection-control literature as the canonical demonstration that the syringe, not the vial, is the proximate vector.{{r|fischer2010}} | |
| + | 109 | ||
| 108 | == References == | 110 | == References == |
| 109 | {{reflist}} | 111 | {{reflist}} |