The BD Portfolio of IV catheters create an ideal balance between patients' and clinicians' needs.
Our innovative solutions are focused on caring for you and your patients by helping to deliver quality care, enhance clinical safety and efficiency, and improve patient experience, which all result in a reduced burden on both the healthcare system and patients. But it all starts with having the right technologies right from the start.
Improving the Patient Experience
Having the right IV catheter for the right therapy application from the start can help improve patient satisfaction.1
- Minimizing the number of sticks may lower the number of IV starts per patient
- Longer dwell times2*,3† help minimize catheter restarts and helps reduce patient discomfort
- Fewer delays or complications lead to a better patient experience
Delivering Quality Care
The BD IV catheter portfolio features leading innovations and proprietary technologies that help improve clinical outcomes and reduce certain risks.
- A stabilization platform, like on BD Nexiva™ IV catheters, may help reduce the risk of catheter-related infections or complications4
- Using 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 therapies2*
Impacting Clinical Efficiency
The BD portfolio of IV catheters can streamline your operations and make a patient's stay a more positive experience.
- BD blood control technologies minimize blood exposure,§ cleanup time, and use of supplies associated with blood spills5
- For patients requiring longer stays, the BD Nexiva™ catheter's built-in stabiization 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 hours3†
- BD Diffusics™ technology allows the use of a smaller gauge for high-flow protocols (22 gauge up to 6.5 mL/sec)‡ to deliver the desired image quality
Reducing the Financial Burden on the Healthcare System
The technologies associated with the BD portfolio have been shown to make the most of clinician and material resources:
- "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/year/1,000 beds compared to an open system3
- When patients go to CT with an IV catheter in place that has inadequate flow rate and pressure capabilities, it can result in throughput delays and wasted resources from resticks
Compliance with Standards and Guidelines
Not only will your clinicians be using advanced technologies that promote high-quality care, the BD portfolio of IV catheters helps ensure your organization is following the latest industry recommendations and guidelines.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
2011 Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice
"Vascular access device (VAD) stabilization shall be used to preserve the integrity of the access device, minimize catheter movement at the hub, prevent catheter dislodgement and loss of access."7
2001 OSHA Enforcement Procedures for the Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens (CPL02-69D)
The OSHA regulations require the use of safe medical devices to minimize employee exposure to bloodborne pathogens.8 The employer must eliminate exposure to the lowest extent feasible.8
||Rosenthal K. Get a hold on costs and safety with securement devices. Nurs Manage. 2005;36(5):52-53.
||Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:845-854.
|*|| Compared to an FEP catheter.
||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.
||Compared to 96 hours with an open system.
||O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. CDC. 2011:36.
||Compared to a non-diffused IV catheter.
||Compared to a non-blood control IV catheter.
||Richardson D, Kaufman L. Reducing blood exposure risks and costs associated with SPIVC insertion. Nurs Manage. 2011;42(12):31-34.
||When used with an IV site securement dressing.
||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.
|**||Compared to B. Braun Introcan Safety® catheter with Bard Statlock® IV Ultra stabilization device.
||Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice. J Infus Nurs. 2011;34(1S):S46.
||United States Department of Labor. Enforcement procedures for the occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens (CPL02-02-69D). Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=2570. Updated November 27, 2001. Accessed October 3, 2015.