Introcan Safety^® 2 Catheter with Multi-Access Blood Control

IV access is an indispensable element of today’s infusion therapy. However, this invasive procedure continues to be associated with potential risks.¹ At B. Braun, we developed Introcan Safety^® 2 Catheter with the guiding principle of making the job of IV access safe for the clinician.¹

Making Access Safe for Clinicians

Needlestick injuries continue to be one of the highest risks clinicians will face during their daily routine. Studies show that passive, fully automatic safety devices are proven to be two times better than a semi-automatic ‘push-button’ safety shield and three times better than a manually sliding shield.¹ With B. Braun’s Introcan Safety^® 2, you are protected by a truly automatic passive safety device.

Passive safety is most effective at preventing needlestick injuries.¹ Our safety mechanism automatically engages upon needle removal, and CANNOT be bypassed.

Making Access Efficient

Multiple attempts to establish IV access can lead to a delay in treatment plus an increase in material cost and time. The Double Flashback Technology of Introcan Safety^® 2 supports first stick success through quick visual confirmation that the vessel has been punctured.

Making Access Convenient

Nine out of 10 nurses reported that absence of blood leakage during short peripheral IV catheter insertion is important.² Introcan Safety 2’s One-time Blood Control Septum is designed to restrict the flow of blood from the catheter hub after needle removal until first connection of a luer access device.

Survey findings show that the average cost per cleanup (when there's blood leakage from the catheter hub) is $0.30 for the gauze, absorbent drapes, towels, and sheets used per event.² The cost may not seem expensive, but it adds up over time. The use of blood control IV catheters is designed to reduce cleanup time and materials.²

Making Access Intuitive

Based on a study, 9 out of 10 clinicians did not have to change their insertion technique and found Introcan Safety 2 clinically acceptable.³

^References:

^{1 Tosini W, Ciotti C, Goyer F, Lolom I, L’Heriteau F, Abiteboul D, et al. Needlestick Injury Rates According to Different Types of Safety-Engineered Devices: Results of a French Multicenter Study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Apr; 31(4):402-7}

^{2 Richardson D, “Reducing blood exposure risks and costs associated with SPIVC insertion”, Nursing Management, vol. 42, no. 12, Dec 2011 (reprint p. 1-4).}

^{3 Data on File}