BD Nexiva closed peripheral IV catheter system

Preserving sites and protecting veins

The BD Nexiva IV catheter, shown to preserve sites for longer and designed to protect patients by reducing the risk of complications and restarts. 1-3*

The BD Nexiva IV catheter has key features that help provide significantly better care. 7

BD Vialon biomaterial

Proprietary BD Vialon biomaterial softens up to 70% in the vein, enabling longer dwell times and reducing the chance of mechanical phlebitis. 1,3,† 

BD Instaflash needle technology

Provides quick blood visualization that may help improve insertion success and therefore reduce insertion attempts.

Built-in stabilization platform

Reduces dislodgement by 84% and complies with the Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice and CDC guidelines for catheter stabilization.4,5

Pre-attached extension set

Shown to significantly reduce blood exposure during insertion compared to an open system2 and aligns with INS guidelines.4

Reduces manipulations

Integrated extension tubing and stabilisation platform reduce manipulations and movement at the site that may lead to dislodgement§ and phlebitis.1,2

Reduces accidental dislodgement

Clinically demonstrated to reduce accidental dislodgement and complies with the Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice and CDC guidelines for catheter stabilisation.4,5

Lessens blood exposure

98% reduced blood exposure during insertion due to the BD Nexiva IV catheter preassembled systems.2*

Lowers chance of mechanical phlebitis

Proprietary BD Vialon biomaterial softens up to 70% in the vein, enabling longer dwell times and reducing the chance of mechanical phlebitis by up to 50%. 3†

BD Nexiva IV catheter dwells longer

In a randomised study comparing the BD Nexiva IV catheter to an open catheter system, the median dwell time for BD Nexiva IV catheters was six days or four days for the open system.1

BD Nexiva IV catheter preserves sites

By preserving sites for longer, the BD Nexiva IV catheter helps patients get the medication they need as scheduled, potentially decreasing their length of stay.1,2,6

May help reduce cost and delays in treatment

In a 2014 clinical study, the longer dwell time (6 days)|| of the BD Nexiva IV catheter led to cost reductions of approximately $1 million per year per 1000 beds compared with an open system.1

Organizational compliance

Compliance with best practises around PIVC use may help reduce costs, limit resource utilisation, and increase patient satisfaction.4,5,7-9

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Catheter stabilisation is recognized as an intervention to decrease the risk for complications and may be advantageous in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs).5

Infusion Therapy Standards of Practise

Recommend limiting the use of add-on devices to reduce the potential for contamination, additional manipulation, and disconnection.4

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium

Recommends the use of vascular access devices that minimize manipulations and reduce components to achieve longer dwelling time and reduce the need for replacement of PIVCs more frequently, with minimum complications.10

Increased clinician safety

98% reduced blood exposure during insertion due to the BD Nexiva IV catheter preassembled system.2**

Increased catheter stabilisation

Clinically demonstrated to reduce accidental dislodgement,2 meeting Infusion Nursing Society standards and CDC guidelines for catheter stabilisation.4,5

Reduced rate of complications

In a clinical study, results demonstrated a significant reduction in the rate of phlebitis (grade 2 or higher), PIVC-related complications, and infiltration in the closed system versus the open system group.1

Preserves sites

In compliance with industry best practises, BD Nexiva IV catheter is the only all-in-one PIVC system shown to dwell longer and preserve sites vs open system PIVCs.1-3

Related Products

Traditional vs closed IV catheter insertion

Learn about the difference between using a traditional IV catheter vs a closed IV catheter for catheter insertion.

Proper stabilisation and vein health

Watch this video to learn more about IV catheter survival and vein health, and how they depend on proper stabilisation.

Please note, not all products, services or features of products and services may be available in your local area. Please check with your local BD representative.


* Compared to an open system

** Compared with a non-blood control catheter

† Compared with an FEP catheter

‡ When used with an IV site securement dressing

§ Compared to the B. Braun Introcan Safety® catheter with the Bard Statlock® IV Ultra stabilisation device

|| Compared with 96 hours in an open system

  1. 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 randomised study. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86(2):117-126.
  2. Infusion Nurses Society. Infusion Therapy Standards of Practice. J Infus Nurs. 2016;39(1S).
  3. Alexander M, Corrigan A, Gorski L, et al. Infusion nursing: an evidence based approach. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier; 2010:410.
  4. O’Grady NP, Alexander, M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. CDC. 2011:16.
  5. Maki DG, Ringer M. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small peripheral venous catheters. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114(10):845-854.
  6. Woodley WD, Ferriter MS, Sullivan VJ, Harvey AJ. Evaluation of PU and FEP peripheral IV catheters utilising a sensitive, accelerated in vivo thrombus-occlusion model. Association for Vascular Access. Twenty-sixth annual meeting for the Association for Vascular Access. 2012.
  7. Helm RE, Klausner JD, Klemperer JD, et al. Accepted but unacceptable: peripheral IV catheter failure. Infus Nurs Society. 2015;38(3):189-203.
  8. Paice T. Economic impact of an extravasation: an analysis. Imaging Economics. 2007;20(3):14.
  9. Roszell S, Jones C. Intravenous administration issues. J Infus Nurs. 2010;33(2):112-118.
  10. Bureau of Labour Statistics website. Accessed April 4, 2017.
  11. Onia R, Eshun-Wilson I, Arce C, et al. Evaluation of a new safety peripheral IV catheter designed to reduce mucocutaneous blood exposure. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(7):1339-1346.
  12. Richardson D, Kaufman L. Reducing blood exposure risks and costs associated with SPIVC insertion. Nurs Manage. 2011;42(12):31-34. 15.
  13. Rosenthal K. Get a hold on costs and safety with securement devices. Nurs Manage. 2005;36(5):52-53.
  14. Schears GJ. Sumar of product trials for 10,164 patients: comparing an intravenous stabilising device to tape. J Infus Nurs. 2006;29(4):225-331.
  15. Tuffaha H, Rickard C, Scuffham P, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of clinically indicated versus routine replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014;12(1):51-58.
  16. Bausone-Gazda D, Lefaiver CA, Walters SA. A randomised controlled trial to compare the complications of 2 peripheral intravenous catheter-catheter-stabilisation systems. J Infus Nurs. 2010;33(6):371-384.

This site uses cookies. If you click accept cookies then all cookies will be written. Please review our cookies policy and configure your cookies for your experience.