In 2003 Mendelson et. al. released a study showing that a passive safety designed IV catheter (IVC) resulted in zero IV stylet needle sticks injuries (Injury rate – 0/87,000; p=0.07) and a “trend toward significance in reducing injuries.”(1). Two new reports confirm these findings when comparing “user activated” versus “passive” devices.

A recent study (2) at a 1200-bed university hospital, not only compared active versus passive devices, but then went on to compare two passive devices, both of which had similar safety mechanisms and required no significant change in insertion technique. The authors discuss differences in performance between the two passive products and why they chose the Introcan Safety® IV Catheter, concluding  “. . . the eradication of injuries due to IVC can be accomplished when Introcan Safety has completely replaced conventional IVC.”

Another look at passive versus active safety designs, by Eck and Lacy (3), addresses the “hands-on” use of these devices, noting that some active devices can require a significant change in technique including the use of two hands for deployment. Even other passive devices might require inconvenient or ergonomically-challenging actions (such as pushing a plunger to a certain point) before the passive safety device will activate.

1)   Mendelson MH, Loin-Chen BY, Finkelstein-Blond LE, Kogan G, Hollinger I. Study of Introcan Safety IV Catheter (IVC) (B.Braun Medical Inc.) for the prevention of percutaneous injuries (PIs) in healthcare workers (HCWs). Abstract presented at: The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. 2003, Arlington, VA.

2)   Linuma Y, Igawa J, Takeshita M et. al. Passive safety devices are more effective at reducing needlestick injuries. The Hospital Infection Society. Elseiver Ltd. 2005.

3)   Eck EK, Lacy C. Active and passive technologies in sharps safety. Infection Control Resource. Vol 3, No 4.


Click here for more information on B. Braun passive safety products.