Vampire Facial: What the PRP Microneedling Trials Show and How to Vet a Clinic
Start with our pillar guide: Dermal Fillers for Ozempic Face: What the Evidence Shows (and Doesn't), or browse all Aesthetic Treatments articles.
A vampire facial is microneedling with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) made from your own blood. In the abstracts we reviewed, evidence looks strongest for acne scars, though its certainty is very low to low. For aging skin, trials conflict, and one small randomized trial found PRP no better than saline.
Evidence: Mixed / contested.
Key takeaways
- A randomized split-face trial of 18 women found no benefit for injected PRP over saline when both were followed by microneedling, and skin laxity and wrinkles showed a suggestion of worsening on both sides (Pincelli et al., 2024).
- A 2022 acne scar meta-analysis of 472 patients linked adding PRP to microneedling with higher odds of more than 50% improvement (OR 2.97), but only 4 of its 14 studies were randomized (Kang et al., 2022).
- A 2024 overview of 15 systematic reviews rated the acne scar evidence very low to low and said it "does not support clear clinical decision" (Cruciani et al., 2024).
- A 2024 overview of PRP for facial rejuvenation graded confidence as low or critically low in 12 of 13 systematic reviews (Cruciani et al., 2024).
- CDC and New Mexico investigators identified 4 former spa clients and 1 sexual partner of a client with closely related HIV infections after vampire facials were offered at an unlicensed spa (Stadelman-Behar et al., 2024).
What is a vampire facial?
A vampire facial is microneedling, a needle-based skin procedure, combined with PRP from your own blood. CDC and New Mexico investigators use the term the same way, describing "cosmetic platelet-rich plasma microneedling facials (vampire facials)" (Stadelman-Behar et al., 2024).
PRP is a concentrated solution of plasma prepared from a patient's own blood. A 2015 review says its platelets are "purported" to release growth factors, which is a careful way to describe a proposed effect (Leo et al., 2015). Preparing PRP involves a blood draw and centrifugation, a spinning step that a 2025 trial lists as unnecessary for exosome treatment (Estupiñan, Ly, Goldberg, 2025).
A vampire facelift is a different procedure that pairs PRP with filler injections, and this page doesn't cover it. If lost facial volume is your main concern, our pillar guide to dermal fillers for Ozempic face covers a separate set of treatments.
The case for PRP starts in the lab. A 2019 review of 108 articles included 18 cell studies, 10 animal studies and 16 clinical studies. Based on in vitro and in vivo work, it concluded that PRP "may play a role" in tissue regeneration, oxidative stress and revascularization (Lei et al., 2019). That review was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and its conclusion doesn't show visible change in human skin.
The name also appears in medical journal titles, including "Single-handed vampire facial: Combining microneedling with platelet-rich plasma for single-hand use" and "Evaluating the effect of social media on the popularity of vampire facial using google trends." Neither PubMed record has an abstract, so we cite them by title only. Evidence: Lab / animal only for the proposed mechanism.
Does a vampire facial work for wrinkles and aging skin?
The evidence for a vampire facial on wrinkles and aging skin is mixed. In the abstracts we reviewed, the only saline-controlled trial found no benefit from adding PRP, while 2 small randomized trials without a saline control reported improvement.
The key negative trial came from Mayo Clinic Florida. In this randomized trial, 18 women received PRP injections on one side of the face and saline on the other, then microneedling across the whole face (Pincelli et al., 2024). Skin laxity and rhytides, the clinical term for wrinkles, showed "no evidence of improvement and suggestion of worsening" through week 24 on both sides (all P ≤ 0.004). Skin roughness didn't change notably on either side.
The authors said PRP injections "did not seem to be effective." They also said the participants' age, over 45, and less-sensitive evaluation methods may have contributed. The authors declared no financial interest in any product, and funding is not stated in PubMed.
Two small trials point the other way, but neither compared PRP with saline. A randomized split-face study of 24 volunteers with photoaging, or sun-related skin aging, used 3 groups across 6 sessions, with biopsies before and after 3 months of treatment. Combining a dermaroller, a handheld microneedling device, with either PRP or a trichloroacetic acid peel beat the dermaroller alone, and dermal structures improved more with PRP than with the peel (El-Domyati et al., 2018). Funding is not stated in PubMed.
A randomized split-face trial of 20 women compared PRP with readymade growth factors over 6 sessions and 6 months of follow-up (Gawdat et al., 2017). Both sides improved, while satisfaction was higher and improvement "more sustained" on the PRP side. The abstract doesn't state how PRP was delivered, so it may not describe a vampire facial. Funding is not stated in PubMed.
Reviews add breadth, but not much confidence. A 2024 overview covered 13 systematic reviews and 28 primary studies, 18 of them uncontrolled. Only 1 review ran a meta-analysis, which showed higher satisfaction with PRP as an add-on treatment (mean difference 0.63, low certainty). The authors called the evidence "insufficient to suggest firm conclusions" (Cruciani et al., 2024). They declared no conflicts, funding is not stated in PubMed, and the overview wasn't specific to microneedling.
A 2025 review of 20 studies and 514 patients looked at PRP or platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) used alone, not specifically with microneedling. Results varied by skin measure, as the chart shows, and every study evaluating patient satisfaction reported significant improvement (Qin et al., 2025). Conflicts and funding are listed as "none declared," although PubMed tags it as non-US-government research support.
Show data table
| Skin measure | Studies reporting improvement (%) |
|---|---|
| Skin thickness | 80% |
| Elasticity | 75% |
| Wrinkles | 40% |
| Texture | 33% |
| Dyschromia | 17% |
| Hydration | 0% |
| Pincelli et al., 2024 | 18 women | 24 weeks | Injected PRP vs saline, then microneedling | No benefit over saline; suggestion of worsening in laxity and wrinkles on both sides |
| El-Domyati et al., 2018 | 24 volunteers | 3 months | Dermaroller alone, with PRP, or with a TCA peel | Both combinations beat dermaroller alone |
| Gawdat et al., 2017 | 20 women | 6 months | PRP vs readymade growth factors; delivery not stated | Both improved; PRP side had higher satisfaction and more sustained improvement |
| Cruciani et al., 2024 | 13 reviews; 28 primary studies | Not reported | PRP alone or combined; not microneedling-specific | Evidence insufficient for firm conclusions |
| Qin et al., 2025 | 20 studies; 514 patients | Not reported | PRP or PRF alone | 40% of studies reported significant wrinkle improvement; no serious adverse events reported |
Pincelli et al., 2024
Result: No benefit over saline; suggestion of worsening in laxity and wrinkles on both sides
Randomized trial. Authors declared no financial interest; funding not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Early / preliminary.
El-Domyati et al., 2018
Result: Both combinations beat dermaroller alone
Randomized split-face study. Funding not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Early / preliminary.
Gawdat et al., 2017
Result: Both improved; PRP side had higher satisfaction and more sustained improvement
Randomized split-face trial. Funding not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Early / preliminary.
Cruciani et al., 2024
Result: Evidence insufficient for firm conclusions
Overview of systematic reviews. No conflicts declared; funding not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Limited.
Qin et al., 2025
Result: 40% of studies reported significant wrinkle improvement; no serious adverse events reported
Systematic review. None declared; PubMed tags non-US-government research support. Evidence: Limited.
Most of these sources are not specific to the vampire facial as sold, so compare what each study tested.
Evidence: Mixed / contested.
Vampire facial for acne scars
Acne scars are where a vampire facial has its most consistent results in the abstracts we reviewed. Adding PRP to microneedling improved outcomes in pooled data, but the certainty of that evidence was rated very low to low.
A 2022 meta-analysis pooled 4 randomized and 10 split-face non-randomized studies with 472 patients (Kang et al., 2022). An odds ratio (OR) above 1 means higher odds of an outcome. Compared with microneedling alone, the combination had roughly 3 times the odds of more than 50% clinical improvement. The authors declared no conflicts, and funding is not stated in PubMed.
PRP plus microneedling vs microneedling alone for acne scars
- OR for more than 50% improvement
- 2.97
- OR for patient satisfaction
- 4.15
- OR for severe erythema
- 1.59
The overview from Italy's National Institute of Health is the main caution. It covered 15 systematic reviews and 34 primary studies: 10 parallel randomized trials, 21 split-face studies and 3 uncontrolled studies (Cruciani et al., 2024). Improvement and satisfaction were higher with PRP, and crusting and erythema, or skin redness, lasted for less time. But PRP was paired with either microneedling or laser in most studies, and the overview said the evidence "does not support clear clinical decision." The authors declared no conflicts, and funding is not stated in PubMed.
A 2026 split-face study of 64 patients with skin types 3 to 6 points the same way. Across 3 sessions spaced 4 weeks apart, the side given PRP "had significantly more improvement" 1 month after the last session (Damodaran et al., 2026). Both sides improved. The authors list limits: the trial was non-randomized, complete blinding wasn't done and follow-up was short. They declared no conflicts, and funding is not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Limited.
PRP facial vs vampire facial: injection vs microneedling
A PRP facial and a vampire facial may not be the same procedure, so check how PRP is delivered. On this page, a vampire facial means PRP used with microneedling, while PRP facial is the broader term and can include PRP injected without microneedling.
The difference affects how far a result applies. A 2023 systematic review of 12 studies focused on PRP injection, and 11 "showed improved results," though many outcomes were subjective (Gentile et al., 2023). Only 3 were randomized split-face trials, and the authors called for level I trials. One affiliation is a professional society, the Academy of International Regenerative Medicine and Surgery Societies, and funding is not stated in PubMed.
The 2025 Qin review covered PRP used alone, without being specific to microneedling (Qin et al., 2025). The Pincelli trial sits between the two categories because it injected PRP and then microneedled the whole face (Pincelli et al., 2024). None of the abstracts we reviewed directly compares injected PRP with PRP microneedling.
| Feature | Injected PRP | PRP microneedling |
|---|---|---|
| Main evidence here | 12-study review of PRP injection | Acne scar meta-analysis of 472 patients |
| Facial aging result | 11 of 12 studies showed improved results, often on subjective outcomes | 24-volunteer trial favored the combination over dermaroller alone |
| Saline-controlled result | Injected PRP then microneedling showed no benefit over saline | None in the abstracts we reviewed for non-injected PRP |
| Head-to-head result | None in the abstracts we reviewed | None in the abstracts we reviewed |
Bottom line: A result from injected PRP can't automatically be applied to a vampire facial, or the reverse.
For PRP or PRF under the eyes specifically, see our under-eye guide. Evidence: Limited.
Vampire facial vs exosome facials
The abstracts we reviewed can't show that a vampire facial is better or worse than an exosome facial. One split-face trial found equal results, but it used radiofrequency (RF) microneedling, which adds RF energy, so it wasn't a standard vampire facial.
The trial was investigator-blinded and designed to test non-inferiority, meaning whether one treatment was not worse than the other (Estupiñan, Ly, Goldberg, 2025). Participants with mild to moderate photoaging had 3 RF microneedling treatments, with PRP on one half of the face and topical exosomes on the other. Exosomes here came from adipose (fat-derived) stem cells. Both treatments "equally improved" wrinkling, dyschromia, erythema, texture and overall appearance, and histology showed no significant differences between sides. Its open-access full text reports 15 participants enrolled and 1 who withdrew, no randomization, one clinic, and assessments at 3 and 6 months.
The trial's ties need spelling out. Its PubMed record lists an affiliation with Skin Laser & Surgery Specialists, a Division of Schweiger Dermatology Group. The full text says the work was "supported, in part, by a research grant to Schweiger Dermatology from Benev Company Inc.", and that both exosome products and the radiofrequency microneedling device were made by BENEV. The authors still declare no conflicts of interest, so we don't call this study independent.
The authors suggest exosomes may appeal to needle-averse patients because no blood draw is needed. Both sides still had RF microneedling, though, and every participant received an active treatment, so the trial doesn't measure either option against no added treatment. For a different regenerative ingredient, see our guide to PDRN salmon DNA skincare. Evidence: Early / preliminary.
Side effects and safety
The most consistently reported vampire facial side effects in the abstracts we reviewed are pain, burning and skin redness. The most serious documented risk comes from the setting: an HIV cluster linked to an unlicensed spa.
In the 18-woman Mayo Clinic Florida trial, all patients had some pain or discomfort and burning or stinging, with both PRP and saline (Pincelli et al., 2024). Because both sides were injected before microneedling, that finding doesn't show PRP caused those sensations. In the acne scar meta-analysis, severe erythema (OR 1.59, P = 0.24) and severe edema, or swelling (OR 1.14, P = 0.77), weren't significantly different with or without PRP (Kang et al., 2022).
Reassurance from the reviews has limits. The Qin review reported no serious adverse events in its included studies, but those studies tested PRP or PRF alone (Qin et al., 2025). Across 13 facial rejuvenation reviews, adverse events were a predefined outcome in only 2 (Cruciani et al., 2024).
The major safety report is a CDC and New Mexico Department of Health investigation (Stadelman-Behar et al., 2024). Sequencing found "highly similar" HIV strains among all cases, despite low reported behavioral risks. The report says HIV transmission through cosmetic injection services via contaminated blood had not been documented before.
The New Mexico vampire facial investigation
- Spring 2018Facials received
A woman with no known HIV risk factors later reported needle exposure from vampire facials she received at a spa that spring.
- Summer 2018Investigation begins
New Mexico health officials were notified of her HIV diagnosis and began investigating the spa's services.
- 2018–2023Cluster identified
Investigators identified 4 former spa clients and 1 sexual partner of a client diagnosed with HIV.
- FindingsSetting failures
The unlicensed facility did not follow recommended infection control procedures or maintain client records.
Using your own blood doesn't remove that concern, because the investigation centered on contaminated blood at a facility without proper infection control. The abstract gives no infection rate across all vampire facials, so this report shows that the risk exists, not how often it occurs. One author reported a conference honorarium and meeting support, and funding is not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Limited.
How to vet a clinic
Start with whether a clinic offering a vampire facial is licensed, follows infection control procedures and keeps client records. Those 3 checks map directly to the failures found in the New Mexico investigation (Stadelman-Behar et al., 2024).
- Is this a licensed medical setting? The HIV cluster was tied to an unlicensed facility.
- What infection control procedures do you follow? The spa didn't follow recommended procedures, and the report calls unsterile injection practices a known HIV transmission risk.
- How do you handle blood and needles? Ask for a specific answer, since a vampire facial involves both.
- Do you keep client records? The report says records support traceback and notification if problems occur.
No study in the abstracts we reviewed tests whether this checklist changes outcomes. Evidence: Expert opinion drawn from the outbreak findings.
Aftercare
Vampire facial aftercare follows the same topic as post-microneedling care, which has its own pages. See our guides to skincare after microneedling and retinol after microneedling.
Where the evidence stops
- Small, conflicting trials. Facial aging trials in the abstracts we reviewed enrolled 18 to 24 people and disagree on whether PRP adds benefit.
- Weak reviews. Confidence was low or critically low in 12 of 13 facial rejuvenation reviews (Cruciani et al., 2024), and the acne scar evidence was rated very low to low (Cruciani et al., 2024).
- Different treatments pooled together. Reviews mix injected and topical PRP, and one review covers both activated and nonactivated PRP (Gentile et al., 2023).
- Few controlled comparisons. The abstracts we reviewed include no saline-controlled facial aging trial of non-injected PRP with standard microneedling.
- Short follow-up. The longest follow-up in the abstracts we reviewed is 6 months (Gawdat et al., 2017), and the negative trial ran 24 weeks.
- Unknown risk rates. The abstracts we reviewed give no rate for bloodborne infection after a vampire facial.
Older review authors asked for better controls, including split-face comparisons (Leo et al., 2015). That work has started, but we don't know yet whether a vampire facial delivers lasting benefits for aging skin.
FAQ
What is a vampire facial?
A vampire facial is microneedling combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) made from your own blood. In the abstracts we reviewed, the term refers to PRP used with microneedling, not PRP injected on its own.
Does a vampire facial actually work?
It depends on the goal. For acne scars, a meta-analysis of 472 patients linked adding PRP to microneedling with better odds of more than 50% improvement (OR 2.97), but an overview rated the certainty of the evidence very low to low. For aging skin, an 18-woman randomized trial found injected PRP no better than saline when both were followed by microneedling.
Does a vampire facial help wrinkles?
The evidence is mixed. In a review of PRP or PRF used alone, 40% of studies reported significant wrinkle improvement, and an overview of 13 systematic reviews found the evidence insufficient for firm conclusions on facial rejuvenation.
Is microneedling with PRP better than microneedling alone for acne scars?
In the abstracts we reviewed, most results favor adding PRP. A 64-patient split-face study found more improvement on the PRP side, but it wasn't randomized, and an overview of 15 systematic reviews rated the overall evidence very low to low.
Is a vampire facial safe?
One review of PRP or PRF used alone reported no serious adverse events in its 20 included studies, but it wasn't specific to microneedling. CDC and New Mexico health officials also linked HIV infections to vampire facials at an unlicensed spa that didn't follow infection control procedures or keep client records.
Does a vampire facial hurt?
In one 18-woman trial, every patient reported some pain or discomfort and burning or stinging. That happened with both PRP and saline, and both sides were injected before microneedling, so the trial can't show that PRP itself caused those sensations.
Are exosome facials better than vampire facials?
One split-face trial found that topical exosomes and PRP improved photoaged skin equally when paired with radiofrequency microneedling. That is a single small study of 15 enrolled participants at one clinic, and its full text says the exosome products and the microneedling device were made by BENEV, which also funded a research grant to the authors' practice.
Can I get a vampire facial for under my eyes?
The abstracts on this page don't report under-eye results, and this page doesn't cover that area. Our separate under-eye guide is linked in the injection vs microneedling section above.
References
- Pincelli et al. Evaluation of Platelet-rich Plasma and Microneedling for Facial Skin Rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024. Randomized trial, n=18 women, PRP vs saline injections plus microneedling, 24-week follow-up; authors declare no financial interest; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38798929/
- El-Domyati et al. Combining microneedling with other minimally invasive procedures for facial rejuvenation: a split-face comparative study. Int J Dermatol. 2018. Randomized split-face study, n=24, 3 months; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30105816/
- Gawdat et al. Autologous platelet-rich plasma versus readymade growth factors in skin rejuvenation: A split face study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017. Randomized split-face trial, n=20 women, 6-month follow-up; delivery method not stated in abstract; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28382785/
- Estupiñan, Ly, Goldberg. Adipose Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment for Photoaged Facial Skin: An Investigator-Blinded, Split-Face, Non-Inferiority Trial. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025. Investigator-blinded split-face trial with RF microneedling; non-randomized, one clinic, 15 enrolled and 1 withdrew, assessed at 3 and 6 months (from the open-access full text); affiliation with Skin Laser & Surgery Specialists, a Division of Schweiger Dermatology Group; funded in part by a research grant to Schweiger Dermatology from Benev Company Inc., which also made both exosome products and the microneedling device; authors declare no conflicts of interest. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40414798/
- Kang et al. Combined Effect of Microneedling and Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Acne Scars: A Meta-Analysis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022. Meta-analysis, 4 randomized and 10 split-face non-randomized studies, n=472; no conflicts declared; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35237616/
- Cruciani et al. Platelet rich plasma use for treatment of acne scars: an overview of systematic reviews. Blood Transfus. 2024. Overview of 15 systematic reviews, 34 primary studies; no conflicts declared; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37677095/
- Damodaran et al. A Split Face Study to Compare the Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Combined with Microneedling Versus Microneedling Alone for Treatment of Acne Scars. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2026. Non-randomized split-face study, n=64, evaluated 1 month after the last session; no conflicts declared; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41460004/
- Cruciani et al. Platelet rich plasma for facial rejuvenation: an overview of systematic reviews. Blood Transfus. 2024. Overview of 13 systematic reviews, 28 primary studies; no conflicts declared; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38557322/
- Qin et al. Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Facial Rejuvenation. Ann Plast Surg. 2025. Systematic review, 20 studies, n=514; conflicts and funding "none declared"; PubMed tag Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40167104/
- Gentile et al. Systematic Review: Platelet-Rich Plasma Use in Facial Rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023. Systematic review, 12 studies including 3 randomized split-face trials; one affiliation is the Academy of International Regenerative Medicine and Surgery Societies; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36728559/
- Leo et al. Systematic review of the use of platelet-rich plasma in aesthetic dermatology. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2015. Systematic review, 22 manuscripts, 8 on skin rejuvenation and dermal augmentation; one affiliation is Sainath Skin Clinic; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26205133/
- Lei et al. Problems and Solutions for Platelet-Rich Plasma in Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019. Systematic review with a mechanism focus, 108 articles, 16 clinical; grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30327852/
- Stadelman-Behar et al. Investigation of Presumptive HIV Transmission Associated with Receipt of Platelet-Rich Plasma Microneedling Facials at a Spa Among Former Spa Clients - New Mexico, 2018-2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024. Outbreak investigation, 5 people identified (4 former clients and 1 sexual partner of a client); one author reported a conference honorarium and meeting support; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38662678/
- Pathania et al. Single-handed vampire facial: Combining microneedling with platelet-rich plasma for single-hand use. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021. No abstract in PubMed; cited by title only; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31408682/
- Razi et al. Evaluating the effect of social media on the popularity of vampire facial using google trends. Skin Res Technol. 2024. No abstract in PubMed; cited by title only; the letter's authors list Rao Dermatology, a private practice; funding not stated in PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38558451/
Disclosure: This article is for general information only. It is not medical advice. Peptide Skincare has no affiliate links in this article and received no payment from any manufacturer mentioned. A vampire facial uses your blood and needles. Have it done in a licensed medical setting by a trained clinician, and ask about infection control before booking.