Expert: Terry B - 5/7/2009

Question
thank you for your reply. I know that once blood becomes dry then it does not pose a risk of transmission and it is why syringes are more dangerous because the blood can remain in a moist state for a longer period of time.
But even in case of solid needles like a sharp paper pin wouldn't some time be required for the blood to become dry/ineffective. This is my point of concern.
Also I would like to ask that haven't such incidents happened in health care settings (though less frequently) where people got infected in a similar situation.

Sorry for my ignorance. Please help me.


"My Question was:

Hi,

I am extremely tense about an incident and am worrying myself to sickness. I had an exposure about one month ago and am waiting for the three month mark to get tested. But this post is not about that incident. Whatever the result be, I know I have some friends whom I can count on and they'll help me get through.

I have already been too tense during the past one month and now the following incident happened:

I was sorting a pile of documents with my mother. Many of those documents had pins attached with them (the long ones and not staple pins). After doing this for a couple of minutes, I saw that there were two minute red spots on my fingers. It is liekly that I got myself stung by one of those pins while handling the papers.

The two red sopts were extremely small, like two dot marks. The skin appeared to be broken and I would feel some pain when I rubbed those spots. However, I did not see any blood and I also did not notice when I stung myself.

I was handing over the papers to my mother and it is possible that she also stung herself with the same pins almost immediately after I stung myself.

Have I put my mother at risk? Sorry, I know that there are many "what if's" here but I am really worried about my mother.

Following is the reason:

Dear Concerned:

Namaste.  There is very little risk - even if you are infected, which we don't know - because the amount of blood that would be on the surface of the needle would, if any, be tiny - and the act of it pressing through the flesh, if it did, would further reduce the amount of fluid.  This is because a pin is unlike a needle with syringe, which is hollow and designed to transport fluids.  I know this is a short answer but I hope it addresses your primary concern.  I would also suggest you consider testing at two months or six weeks - some of the tests available today are more sensitive than those we once had.  But follow the advice of your doctor or testing center.

Best to you and yours,

Terry"


Answer
Dear Concerned:

Peace - indeed, in health care, workers are sometimes exposed to HIV infected blood.  The statistics suggest that 57 people have become infected in the workplace in the US since we started tracking.(http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/hcwprev.htm)

Here's the issue of probability - the probability of you being infected is unknown - but you describe one exposure, and even if that was to an HIV infected person, that does not guarantee that you are infected.  As you said, you are planning on seeing someone about your own test, and as I advised, you might want to see if some testing is available for you today, and discuss with the counselor your concerns.  

If you are indeed HIV positive, the amount of blood on the pin would be small.  As you were handling these back and forth and didn't notice untill you looked, and as there were documents and absorbent materials involved, the amount would be lessened.  The chances of your mother being exposed to the exact pin that was tainted with your blood, and piercing her own skin (which would further wipe off the needle) and exposing her bloodstream to that specific place... well, I hope you understand what a small chance that would be.

Again, check with your doctor or an HIV testing counselor and see if your status can't be known earlier than you anticipate.  Know also that the "early" tests are more likely to show a 'false positive' - maybe as high as 10% - meaning it indicates you MIGHT be infected when in fact you are not.   Their reliability in finding HIV when it is present or MIGHT be is quite good.

I hope this helps - I cannot guarantee with certainty - but the chances of a transmission occurring in such a manner seem almost nil.

Best to you and yours,

Terry