Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Replacing needles before dog vaccinations does not improve reactions
By Sagaser, Jane et al.·Published in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association·2026·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Needle replacement before subcutaneous vaccination in dogs: a randomized clinical trial finds no clinical benefit.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 75 dogs received vaccinations using either the same needle that drew up the vaccine or a new one. The study found that there was no difference in the dogs' heart rates or their reactions to the needle insertion, regardless of whether the needle was replaced. This means that using the same needle for vaccination is acceptable and does not negatively impact the dog's comfort or response to the vaccine. The findings suggest that replacing needles does not provide any real benefit and can add unnecessary costs and waste.
People also search for: dog vaccination needle replacement · dog vaccination comfort · rabies vaccine side effects in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether replacing needles after vial septum puncture affects canine response to vaccination and whether injectors can distinguish between replaced and nonreplaced needles. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, controlled crossover trial conducted at the Midwestern University College of Veterinary Medicine vaccine clinics between June and August of 2024, 75 client-owned dogs received both rabies and distemper, hepatitis, parainfluenza, and parvovirus vaccines, one with a replaced needle and one with the original needle used to draw up the vaccine. Heart rate (HR) was recorded continuously, reaction to needle insertion was scored on a 5-point scale by 2 blinded observers, and injectors guessed which syringe had the replaced needle. The outcomes of HR change between baseline and maximum after insertion and mean reaction rating were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models and injector guess with a 1-sample test of proportions. RESULTS: 45 dogs (60%) provided complete HR data. Change in HR for replaced as compared to nonreplaced needles was not different (β = -0.8; 95% CI, -12 to 10). Heart rate was higher for rabies administered second (β = 23; 95% CI, 7 to 40). Reaction scores did not differ (β = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.14). Injectors identified replaced needles 46% of the time (95% CI, 34 to 58), which was not better than chance. CONCLUSIONS: Needle replacement did not improve patient comfort, and injectors were unable to perceive a difference between replaced and nonreplaced needles. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Injecting dogs with the same needle used for drawing up vaccines is clinically acceptable. Replacement provides no measurable patient benefit while adding risk, waste, and cost.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41442842/