Why BD IV catheters?

Learn how our IV catheters are different

BD IV catheters help improve the patient experience and deliver quality care while positively impacting clinical efficiency. They also help reduce the financial burden on the healthcare system and maintain compliance with industy standards.

Improving the patient experience

Using the proper IV catheter for the therapy from the start can help improve patient satisfaction1 by providing the following benefits:

  • Minimizing the number of sticks may lower the number of IV starts per patient.
  • Longer dwell times2*,3† help minimize catheter restarts and reduce patient discomfort.
  • Fewer delays or complications lead to a better patient experience.
Delivering quality care

Our IV catheter portfolio incorporates leading innovations and proprietary technologies that help improve clinical outcomes and reduce certain risks, though the following features:

  • A stabilization platform—like on BD Nexiva™ IV catheters—may help reduce the risk of catheter-related infections or complications.4
  • BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ diffusion-tip technology reduces the force of contrast on the vessel by up to 50%.
  • The kink-resistant nature of BD Vialon™ biomaterial softens in the vein, enabling longer therapies.2*
Positively impacting clinical efficiency

Our portfolio of IV catheters can streamline your operations and make patients' stays a more positive experience, though the following features:

  • BD blood control technologies minimize blood exposure,§ cleanup time and use of supplies associated with blood spills.5
  • For patients requiring longer stays, the BD Nexiva catheter built-in stabilization platform|| reduces dislodgement by 84%,6** and the BD Nexiva IV catheter has been demonstrated in a 2014 clinical study to last up to 144 hours.3†
  • BD Diffusics technology allows the use of a smaller gauge for high-flow protocols (22 G up to 6.5 mL/sec)# to deliver the desired image quality.
Reducing financial burden

BD portfolio technologies make the most of clinician, material and financial resources in the following ways:

  • "Actual costs associated with PIV catheter restarts include materials and nursing resources; yet intangibles such as treatment of patient complications and patient dissatisfaction may be far more costly."6
  • In a 2014 study, the longer dwell times of closed systems led to a cost reduction of approximately $1M per year per 1,000 beds compared to an open system.3
  • For patients going to a CT scan with an IV catheter in place, catheters with inadequate flow rate and pressure capabilities can cause throughput delays and waste resources from resticks.
Compliance with industry guidelines

Our IV catheters help ensure that your organization is adhering to the latest industry guidelines, including the following recommendations:4,7,8

2011 CDC Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections

"Use a sutureless securement device to reduce the risk of infection for intravascular catheters. Category II."4

2016 Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice

"Stabilize and secure vascular access devices (VADs) to prevent VAD complications and unintentional loss of access."*7

2001 OSHA Enforcement Procedures for the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens

This instruction requires the use of safe medical devices to minimize employee exposure to bloodborne pathogens. The employer must eliminate exposure to the lowest extent feasible.8


* Compared to a fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) catheter

† Compared to 96 hours with an open system

‡ Compared to a nondiffused IV catheter

§ Compared to a nonblood control IV catheter

|| When used with an IV site securement dressing

# Compared to B. Braun Introcan Safety® IV catheter straight with Bard Statlock® IV Ultra stabilization device

  1. Rosenthal K. Get a hold on costs and safety with securement devices. Nurs Manage. 2005;36(5):52-53.
  2. Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:845-854.
  3. González López J, Arribi Vilela A, Fernández Del Palacio E, et al. Indwell times, complications and costs of open vs closed safety peripheral intravenous catheters: a randomized study. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86(2):117-126.
  4. O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2011:36.
  5. Richardson D, Kaufman L. Reducing blood exposure risks and costs associated with SPIVC insertion. Nurs Manage. 2011;42(12):31-34.
  6. Bausone-Gazda D, Lefaiver CA, Walters SA. A randomized controlled trial to compare the complications of 2 peripheral intravenous catheter-stabilization systems. J Infus Nurs. 2010;33(6):371-384.
  7. Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice. J Infus Nurs. 2016;37(1S).
  8. Occupational Safety & Health Administration. Enforcement Procedures for the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=2570. Published November 27, 2001. Accessed May 18, 2016.

BD-2578 (04/17)