Exploring the Use of Jet Injectors for Vaccination
Written on
Vaccines stand out as one of the most significant advancements in public health over the past century, transforming deadly diseases into manageable conditions. However, many individuals remain apprehensive about receiving vaccinations, largely due to the discomfort associated with needles.
While the temporary side effects of vaccines can be unpleasant, many, particularly young children, dread the sharpness of needles themselves. Wouldn't it be a more appealing option to receive a vaccine without the use of a needle?
Enter the jet injector, a needle-free vaccination device. This technique has been around since the early 1900s, offering several advantages over traditional injections. Despite this, the World Health Organization recommends against its use. Why is that? How do jet injectors work, and why aren't they more prevalent?
From Diesel Engines to Human Arms
The concept of the jet injector was inspired by diesel engine technology in the early 20th century. Diesel engines require fuel to be atomized and mixed with air before being injected. This is achieved through a fuel injector that releases the mixture in tiny droplets.
Interestingly, if a fuel injector is pressed against skin, it can inadvertently inject these droplets into a person. In 1935, engineer Arnold Sutermeister recognized that these devices could be adapted to deliver medicine instead of fuel.
Thus, the jet injector was developed, utilizing high pressure to deliver a concentrated stream of liquid medication into the patient’s arm. This method was especially advantageous for mass vaccination campaigns, as it eliminated the need to switch needles between uses.
Jet injectors gained popularity from the 1950s to the 1970s, particularly in military settings for vaccinating recruits and in public health initiatives against diseases like smallpox. They played a significant role in eradicating smallpox. So, why don’t we see them in every clinic today?
The Drawbacks of High-Pressure Vaccination
Despite their advantages, jet injectors come with notable downsides: splash-back, suck-back, and retrograde flow.
Splash-back occurs when the injected liquid splashes off the skin, contaminating the nozzle and potentially the internal components of the injector. Simply cleaning the exterior is insufficient to prevent cross-contamination.
Example: A doctor uses a jet injector for a flu vaccine, but residual vaccine accidentally contaminates the next patient's insulin dose.
Suck-back happens when bodily fluids from the patient are drawn back into the injector, contaminating the next dose. Jet injectors need to be pressed directly against the skin, and they can draw blood, which poses a risk of cross-contamination.
Example: A patient with HIV receives a vaccine, and some blood is drawn back into the injector, which is then used for another patient.
Retrograde flow involves the injected medicine mixing with the patient’s blood before being sucked back into the nozzle, compounding the risks of splash-back and suck-back.
Example: A weight-loss clinic's use of jet injectors in the 1980s led to hepatitis B infections due to improper cleaning.
These issues mean that, despite the initial intent to speed up vaccination processes, jet injectors require thorough cleaning between uses, negating their efficiency in large-scale immunizations.
What about individual use? Unfortunately, jet injectors are reported to be more painful than traditional needle injections. In military settings, recruits have described extreme discomfort from jet injections, particularly if they flinched during the process, leading to the potential for injury.
In 1997, due to safety and pain concerns, the U.S. Department of Defense discontinued the use of jet injectors for mass vaccinations.
Current Status of Needle-Free Injectors
Today, jet injectors, now termed "needle-free injectors," have limited applications and are unlikely to replace traditional needle vaccinations. Some designs utilize disposable cartridges to reduce contamination risks, but they generate more waste.
For example, the InsuJet is utilized in the U.K. and parts of Europe for insulin delivery, allowing for quick absorption and minimizing contamination risks since each device is used by only one person. However, studies suggest that the pain level is comparable to that of a needle.
Improvements in needle technology mean that most vaccinations are administered with thinner needles, which many individuals find less painful than in the past. Consequently, while jet injectors may continue to see niche use, advancements in needle design and the safety issues associated with jet injectors will likely prevent them from becoming commonplace.
In Summary: The Appeal of Needle-Free Vaccination
Jet injectors emerged from the realization that high-pressure liquid could penetrate the skin efficiently. However, they pose significant risks of cross-contamination if not properly cleaned. Although they were once widely used, safety concerns have led to their decline.
Despite the absence of needles, jet injections can still be painful. Current disposable needle technologies have improved to minimize discomfort, ensuring that jet injectors remain largely a specialized tool rather than a standard vaccination method.
Have you ever experienced a needle-free injection? What was your experience like?
If you enjoyed this article, consider sharing your thoughts on Twitter @swestreich.