Blood Collection Devices Market by Product Type (Blood Bags, Blood Collection Needles, Blood Collection Tubes), Technology (Automated Blood Collection Devices, Manual Blood Collection Devices), Material, Application, End Users - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Blood Collection Devices Market was valued at USD 7.74 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 8.18 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 6.09%, reaching USD 12.43 billion by 2032.
Compelling introduction to blood collection devices synthesizing clinical needs, technological advances, regulatory pressures, and operational resilience
The blood collection device landscape sits at the intersection of clinical need, technological progress, and supply chain complexity. Innovations in minimally invasive sampling, automated collection platforms, and materials science have altered workflows across blood donation centers, diagnostic laboratories, and clinical settings. At the same time, heightened regulatory scrutiny and evolving reimbursement pathways continue to shape device design, manufacturing practices, and vendor selection criteria. These dynamics require leaders to balance safety, usability, and cost while anticipating operational disruptions and new clinical demands.
Clinicians and laboratory directors increasingly expect devices that integrate seamlessly with downstream assays and instrumentation, preserving sample integrity while reducing pre-analytical variability. Parallel trends in point-of-care diagnostics and decentralized testing have increased demand for collection solutions that perform reliably in non-traditional settings. Moreover, manufacturers must contend with environmental sustainability pressures that influence material choice and end-of-life considerations. Together, these forces are transforming both product development priorities and procurement strategies, compelling stakeholders to rethink how device performance, user experience, and supply resilience are evaluated and prioritized.
Detailed analysis of transformative technological, operational, and regulatory shifts reshaping blood collection device design and deployment
The field of blood collection devices is undergoing transformative shifts driven by technological maturation, user-centric design, and changing healthcare delivery models. Automated blood collection platforms have evolved to reduce collection time, standardize volumes, and minimize contamination risk, while manual devices maintain their relevance in resource-limited and point-of-care contexts. Advances in materials, such as higher-performance plastics and improved rubber stoppers, have enhanced compatibility with modern assays and extended shelf life under variable storage conditions. Simultaneously, analytics and connectivity features are enabling traceability across the pre-analytical chain and improving sample handling through barcode integration and digital verification.
Beyond hardware, changes in clinical practice are redistributing volume across settings; outpatient clinics, community collection sites, and telehealth-enabled phlebotomy programs now perform tasks once confined to hospital laboratories. This decentralization increases the need for collection devices that are intuitive, robust, and tolerant of a wider range of user skills. Regulatory authorities have adapted guidance to reflect these operational shifts, emphasizing device labeling, sterility assurance, and human factors engineering. In parallel, manufacturers are investing in modular platforms and partnering with diagnostic companies to co-design solutions that optimize downstream assay performance. These cumulative shifts alter supplier relationships, accelerate product lifecycle iteration, and require stakeholders to re-evaluate long-term sourcing and innovation roadmaps.
Comprehensive review of how 2025 tariff measures altered sourcing strategies, supply chain resilience, and procurement dynamics for device manufacturers and providers
The cumulative impact of tariffs implemented in the United States during 2025 has reverberated across supply chains for medical devices, including blood collection technologies. Tariff measures on specific inputs and finished goods increased landed costs for manufacturers reliant on imported raw materials such as specialized polymers, stainless steel components, and rubber formulations. Faced with higher input prices, original equipment manufacturers adjusted procurement strategies, sought alternative suppliers, and, in some cases, accelerated nearshoring or regional sourcing initiatives to mitigate exposure to trade policy volatility. These strategic responses influenced lead times and inventory management practices, prompting greater emphasis on dual sourcing and buffer stocks.
Clinical providers and procurement teams experienced downstream effects as contract negotiations incorporated new cost variables and delivery terms. Many organizations enhanced supplier risk assessments and prioritized suppliers with geographically diversified manufacturing footprints. In addition, regulatory considerations around material substitution required careful evaluation to preserve assay compatibility and sterility standards. The tariff environment also catalyzed conversations about long-term vertical integration, with some players exploring in-house manufacturing of critical components to control costs and maintain supply continuity. Overall, the policy landscape of 2025 underscored the need for greater agility in sourcing strategies and closer alignment between commercial, regulatory, and supply chain functions.
In-depth segmentation insights linking product types, technological platforms, material choices, applications, and end-user priorities to strategic commercialization
A nuanced segmentation framework reveals where clinical demand, technology capability, and material selection intersect to shape product development and commercialization strategies. When analyzed by product type, the market’s categories-blood bags, blood collection needles, blood collection tubes, and blood lancets-exhibit distinct development pathways and user requirements. Within blood collection needles, the differentiation between syringe needles and vacuum needles reflects varied use cases: syringe needles remain common in controlled clinical procedures and certain therapeutic contexts, while vacuum needles are preferred for standardized blood draws and integration with evacuated tube systems. Blood collection tubes themselves split into EDTA tubes, heparin tubes, plasma blood tubes, and serum tubes, each tailored to preserve analytes for specific diagnostic applications and downstream assay workflows.
Technology segmentation between automated blood collection devices and manual blood collection devices highlights competing priorities. Automated systems deliver throughput, standardization, and automation-compatible interfaces that appeal to high-volume donation centers and centralized laboratories, whereas manual devices continue to provide flexibility for point-of-care testing and settings with constrained infrastructure. Material selection-glass, plastic, rubber, and stainless steel-further governs device performance, compatibility with assays, and environmental considerations; glass tubes retain certain analytical advantages, while plastic alternatives improve breakage resistance and reduce shipping weight. Application segmentation into diagnostics and therapeutics delineates commercial pathways, regulatory demands, and clinician expectations, with diagnostics emphasizing preservative chemistry and tube integrity and therapeutics prioritizing sterility and volumetric accuracy. End-user segmentation across blood donation centers, diagnostic centers and pathology laboratories, and hospitals and clinics clarifies purchasing behavior, operational priorities, and scale requirements, informing tailored go-to-market approaches and service models for suppliers seeking traction in specific channels.
Strategic regional insights highlighting how geographic healthcare ecosystems, regulatory landscapes, and manufacturing footprints influence device strategy and commercialization
Regional dynamics exert a material influence on manufacturing footprint decisions, regulatory approaches, and commercialization strategies, driven by distinct healthcare infrastructures and procurement practices. In the Americas, demand patterns reflect a mature clinical diagnostics ecosystem with emphasis on automation, compliance, and bundled supplier services; procurement cycles often prioritize long-term contracts and validated supply chains, and manufacturers focus on compatibility with regional lab automation standards. Europe, the Middle East & Africa present a heterogeneous landscape where regulatory harmonization efforts coexist with pockets of advanced laboratory networks; manufacturers must navigate diverse reimbursement environments and logistical challenges while offering flexible product configurations that accommodate varied clinical protocols.
Asia-Pacific displays rapid adoption of decentralized testing models and significant investment in domestic manufacturing capacity, supported by government initiatives to increase healthcare access and bolster local production. This region’s scale and diversity create both opportunities for high-volume standardized solutions and demand for adaptable devices suited to lower-resource settings. Across all regions, environmental sustainability and recyclability of materials are gaining prominence among procurement teams and regulatory reviewers, influencing product specification and supplier selection. These geographic factors shape where companies invest in manufacturing, which product variants receive priority, and how commercial teams tailor messaging to resonate with regional clinical and regulatory stakeholders.
Key company-level insights showing how product platform strategies, partnerships, operational excellence, and service offerings create competitive advantage across clinical settings
Leading companies within the blood collection device ecosystem demonstrate distinct competitive approaches that encompass vertical integration, partnership-driven innovation, and service-led differentiation. Some firms concentrate on developing integrated platforms that pair collection hardware with digital traceability solutions and consumables, aiming to lock in downstream compatibility and create recurring revenue through supply agreements. Other organizations emphasize modular product lines that can be configured for varying clinical environments, enabling rapid adoption across both centralized laboratories and point-of-care settings. Strategic collaborations between manufacturers and diagnostic developers have become more common, focusing on co-validation to ensure pre-analytical variables do not compromise assay performance.
Operational excellence has emerged as a differentiator, with top players investing in quality systems, regulatory expertise, and geographically diversified manufacturing to reduce lead times and support rapid market entry. Service capabilities, including training programs, device maintenance, and data integration support, enhance customer retention by addressing practical barriers to adoption. Additionally, innovation in materials science and human factors engineering continues to inform product roadmaps, with successful companies prioritizing usability studies and clinician feedback loops. These competitive patterns indicate that firms combining robust supply chain resilience, deep regulatory knowledge, and customer-centric services will be best positioned to capture sustained demand across heterogeneous clinical settings.
High-impact recommendations for industry leaders to enhance supply resilience, user-centric design, digital integration, and sustainable commercialization strategies
Industry leaders should prioritize a set of actionable moves that protect supply continuity, accelerate clinical adoption, and align product development with evolving use cases. First, diversifying supplier bases for critical inputs while pursuing dual sourcing and regional manufacturing options will reduce vulnerability to trade policy shifts and logistical disruptions. Second, embedding human factors engineering and clinician co-design into product development cycles will enhance usability across disparate end users, improving uptake in decentralized settings. Third, investing in digital traceability and interoperability features that integrate seamlessly with laboratory information systems and point-of-care platforms will strengthen value propositions for large diagnostic networks and hospital systems.
Moreover, companies should evaluate opportunities to co-develop collection consumables with diagnostic partners to ensure analyte stability and streamline regulatory pathways. Environmental considerations warrant the exploration of recyclable materials and packaging optimization to meet procurement criteria increasingly driven by sustainability mandates. Commercially, adopting flexible contracting models and offering targeted service bundles-training, device validation support, and maintenance-can accelerate procurement decisions among hospitals, donation centers, and pathology laboratories. Finally, cross-functional alignment between regulatory, supply chain, and commercial teams will expedite market entry and enable more resilient responses to policy or demand shocks, preserving clinical continuity and fostering long-term partnerships with key customers.
Transparent mixed-methods research methodology combining clinician interviews, technical literature review, and supply chain mapping to validate practical and strategic findings
The research underpinning these insights employed a mixed-methods approach that combined primary interviews, technical literature review, and supply chain analysis to capture both operational realities and strategic trends. Primary input included structured conversations with clinicians, laboratory managers, procurement leads, and design engineers to validate use-case requirements, human factors observations, and procurement criteria. Technical literature and regulatory guidance were reviewed to ensure device performance considerations and compliance expectations were accurately reflected. In parallel, supply chain mapping identified concentration risks for critical inputs and highlighted the geographic distribution of manufacturing capacity relevant to sourcing and lead-time dynamics.
Triangulation across these data streams ensured robustness of findings; qualitative insights from practitioners provided context for technology adoption patterns and usability priorities, while supply-side analysis clarified material and component dependencies. The methodology emphasized transparency in assumptions, and findings were iteratively validated through expert review cycles to refine interpretations. This approach produced actionable intelligence that blends frontline clinical experience with operational and regulatory realities, enabling stakeholders to apply the report’s insights within commercial, procurement, and R&D decision-making processes.
Concise conclusion synthesizing how innovation, operational resilience, and regulatory alignment will determine competitive success and clinical adoption trajectories
In synthesis, the blood collection device sector is at an inflection point where technological innovation, shifting care delivery models, and supply chain imperatives converge to redefine product value propositions. Devices that combine robust pre-analytical performance with intuitive design, digital connectivity, and supply chain resilience will gain preference among procurement and clinical stakeholders. Regulatory and environmental pressures will continue to influence material selection and labeling, compelling manufacturers to demonstrate both analytical compatibility and lifecycle responsibility. Meanwhile, policy moves and trade dynamics have highlighted the importance of diversified sourcing and regional manufacturing strategies to maintain continuity of supply and control costs under fluctuating external conditions.
Going forward, organizations that integrate clinician-centered design, proactive supply chain planning, and strategic partnerships with diagnostic developers will be better positioned to respond to decentralized testing demands and evolving clinical workflows. The competitive landscape will favor firms that pair operational excellence with targeted service offerings, enabling faster adoption across hospitals, donation centers, and diagnostic laboratories. By aligning R&D priorities with end-user needs and regulatory expectations, stakeholders can accelerate the deployment of collection solutions that enhance sample integrity, improve workflow efficiency, and support patient-centric care models.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Compelling introduction to blood collection devices synthesizing clinical needs, technological advances, regulatory pressures, and operational resilience
The blood collection device landscape sits at the intersection of clinical need, technological progress, and supply chain complexity. Innovations in minimally invasive sampling, automated collection platforms, and materials science have altered workflows across blood donation centers, diagnostic laboratories, and clinical settings. At the same time, heightened regulatory scrutiny and evolving reimbursement pathways continue to shape device design, manufacturing practices, and vendor selection criteria. These dynamics require leaders to balance safety, usability, and cost while anticipating operational disruptions and new clinical demands.
Clinicians and laboratory directors increasingly expect devices that integrate seamlessly with downstream assays and instrumentation, preserving sample integrity while reducing pre-analytical variability. Parallel trends in point-of-care diagnostics and decentralized testing have increased demand for collection solutions that perform reliably in non-traditional settings. Moreover, manufacturers must contend with environmental sustainability pressures that influence material choice and end-of-life considerations. Together, these forces are transforming both product development priorities and procurement strategies, compelling stakeholders to rethink how device performance, user experience, and supply resilience are evaluated and prioritized.
Detailed analysis of transformative technological, operational, and regulatory shifts reshaping blood collection device design and deployment
The field of blood collection devices is undergoing transformative shifts driven by technological maturation, user-centric design, and changing healthcare delivery models. Automated blood collection platforms have evolved to reduce collection time, standardize volumes, and minimize contamination risk, while manual devices maintain their relevance in resource-limited and point-of-care contexts. Advances in materials, such as higher-performance plastics and improved rubber stoppers, have enhanced compatibility with modern assays and extended shelf life under variable storage conditions. Simultaneously, analytics and connectivity features are enabling traceability across the pre-analytical chain and improving sample handling through barcode integration and digital verification.
Beyond hardware, changes in clinical practice are redistributing volume across settings; outpatient clinics, community collection sites, and telehealth-enabled phlebotomy programs now perform tasks once confined to hospital laboratories. This decentralization increases the need for collection devices that are intuitive, robust, and tolerant of a wider range of user skills. Regulatory authorities have adapted guidance to reflect these operational shifts, emphasizing device labeling, sterility assurance, and human factors engineering. In parallel, manufacturers are investing in modular platforms and partnering with diagnostic companies to co-design solutions that optimize downstream assay performance. These cumulative shifts alter supplier relationships, accelerate product lifecycle iteration, and require stakeholders to re-evaluate long-term sourcing and innovation roadmaps.
Comprehensive review of how 2025 tariff measures altered sourcing strategies, supply chain resilience, and procurement dynamics for device manufacturers and providers
The cumulative impact of tariffs implemented in the United States during 2025 has reverberated across supply chains for medical devices, including blood collection technologies. Tariff measures on specific inputs and finished goods increased landed costs for manufacturers reliant on imported raw materials such as specialized polymers, stainless steel components, and rubber formulations. Faced with higher input prices, original equipment manufacturers adjusted procurement strategies, sought alternative suppliers, and, in some cases, accelerated nearshoring or regional sourcing initiatives to mitigate exposure to trade policy volatility. These strategic responses influenced lead times and inventory management practices, prompting greater emphasis on dual sourcing and buffer stocks.
Clinical providers and procurement teams experienced downstream effects as contract negotiations incorporated new cost variables and delivery terms. Many organizations enhanced supplier risk assessments and prioritized suppliers with geographically diversified manufacturing footprints. In addition, regulatory considerations around material substitution required careful evaluation to preserve assay compatibility and sterility standards. The tariff environment also catalyzed conversations about long-term vertical integration, with some players exploring in-house manufacturing of critical components to control costs and maintain supply continuity. Overall, the policy landscape of 2025 underscored the need for greater agility in sourcing strategies and closer alignment between commercial, regulatory, and supply chain functions.
In-depth segmentation insights linking product types, technological platforms, material choices, applications, and end-user priorities to strategic commercialization
A nuanced segmentation framework reveals where clinical demand, technology capability, and material selection intersect to shape product development and commercialization strategies. When analyzed by product type, the market’s categories-blood bags, blood collection needles, blood collection tubes, and blood lancets-exhibit distinct development pathways and user requirements. Within blood collection needles, the differentiation between syringe needles and vacuum needles reflects varied use cases: syringe needles remain common in controlled clinical procedures and certain therapeutic contexts, while vacuum needles are preferred for standardized blood draws and integration with evacuated tube systems. Blood collection tubes themselves split into EDTA tubes, heparin tubes, plasma blood tubes, and serum tubes, each tailored to preserve analytes for specific diagnostic applications and downstream assay workflows.
Technology segmentation between automated blood collection devices and manual blood collection devices highlights competing priorities. Automated systems deliver throughput, standardization, and automation-compatible interfaces that appeal to high-volume donation centers and centralized laboratories, whereas manual devices continue to provide flexibility for point-of-care testing and settings with constrained infrastructure. Material selection-glass, plastic, rubber, and stainless steel-further governs device performance, compatibility with assays, and environmental considerations; glass tubes retain certain analytical advantages, while plastic alternatives improve breakage resistance and reduce shipping weight. Application segmentation into diagnostics and therapeutics delineates commercial pathways, regulatory demands, and clinician expectations, with diagnostics emphasizing preservative chemistry and tube integrity and therapeutics prioritizing sterility and volumetric accuracy. End-user segmentation across blood donation centers, diagnostic centers and pathology laboratories, and hospitals and clinics clarifies purchasing behavior, operational priorities, and scale requirements, informing tailored go-to-market approaches and service models for suppliers seeking traction in specific channels.
Strategic regional insights highlighting how geographic healthcare ecosystems, regulatory landscapes, and manufacturing footprints influence device strategy and commercialization
Regional dynamics exert a material influence on manufacturing footprint decisions, regulatory approaches, and commercialization strategies, driven by distinct healthcare infrastructures and procurement practices. In the Americas, demand patterns reflect a mature clinical diagnostics ecosystem with emphasis on automation, compliance, and bundled supplier services; procurement cycles often prioritize long-term contracts and validated supply chains, and manufacturers focus on compatibility with regional lab automation standards. Europe, the Middle East & Africa present a heterogeneous landscape where regulatory harmonization efforts coexist with pockets of advanced laboratory networks; manufacturers must navigate diverse reimbursement environments and logistical challenges while offering flexible product configurations that accommodate varied clinical protocols.
Asia-Pacific displays rapid adoption of decentralized testing models and significant investment in domestic manufacturing capacity, supported by government initiatives to increase healthcare access and bolster local production. This region’s scale and diversity create both opportunities for high-volume standardized solutions and demand for adaptable devices suited to lower-resource settings. Across all regions, environmental sustainability and recyclability of materials are gaining prominence among procurement teams and regulatory reviewers, influencing product specification and supplier selection. These geographic factors shape where companies invest in manufacturing, which product variants receive priority, and how commercial teams tailor messaging to resonate with regional clinical and regulatory stakeholders.
Key company-level insights showing how product platform strategies, partnerships, operational excellence, and service offerings create competitive advantage across clinical settings
Leading companies within the blood collection device ecosystem demonstrate distinct competitive approaches that encompass vertical integration, partnership-driven innovation, and service-led differentiation. Some firms concentrate on developing integrated platforms that pair collection hardware with digital traceability solutions and consumables, aiming to lock in downstream compatibility and create recurring revenue through supply agreements. Other organizations emphasize modular product lines that can be configured for varying clinical environments, enabling rapid adoption across both centralized laboratories and point-of-care settings. Strategic collaborations between manufacturers and diagnostic developers have become more common, focusing on co-validation to ensure pre-analytical variables do not compromise assay performance.
Operational excellence has emerged as a differentiator, with top players investing in quality systems, regulatory expertise, and geographically diversified manufacturing to reduce lead times and support rapid market entry. Service capabilities, including training programs, device maintenance, and data integration support, enhance customer retention by addressing practical barriers to adoption. Additionally, innovation in materials science and human factors engineering continues to inform product roadmaps, with successful companies prioritizing usability studies and clinician feedback loops. These competitive patterns indicate that firms combining robust supply chain resilience, deep regulatory knowledge, and customer-centric services will be best positioned to capture sustained demand across heterogeneous clinical settings.
High-impact recommendations for industry leaders to enhance supply resilience, user-centric design, digital integration, and sustainable commercialization strategies
Industry leaders should prioritize a set of actionable moves that protect supply continuity, accelerate clinical adoption, and align product development with evolving use cases. First, diversifying supplier bases for critical inputs while pursuing dual sourcing and regional manufacturing options will reduce vulnerability to trade policy shifts and logistical disruptions. Second, embedding human factors engineering and clinician co-design into product development cycles will enhance usability across disparate end users, improving uptake in decentralized settings. Third, investing in digital traceability and interoperability features that integrate seamlessly with laboratory information systems and point-of-care platforms will strengthen value propositions for large diagnostic networks and hospital systems.
Moreover, companies should evaluate opportunities to co-develop collection consumables with diagnostic partners to ensure analyte stability and streamline regulatory pathways. Environmental considerations warrant the exploration of recyclable materials and packaging optimization to meet procurement criteria increasingly driven by sustainability mandates. Commercially, adopting flexible contracting models and offering targeted service bundles-training, device validation support, and maintenance-can accelerate procurement decisions among hospitals, donation centers, and pathology laboratories. Finally, cross-functional alignment between regulatory, supply chain, and commercial teams will expedite market entry and enable more resilient responses to policy or demand shocks, preserving clinical continuity and fostering long-term partnerships with key customers.
Transparent mixed-methods research methodology combining clinician interviews, technical literature review, and supply chain mapping to validate practical and strategic findings
The research underpinning these insights employed a mixed-methods approach that combined primary interviews, technical literature review, and supply chain analysis to capture both operational realities and strategic trends. Primary input included structured conversations with clinicians, laboratory managers, procurement leads, and design engineers to validate use-case requirements, human factors observations, and procurement criteria. Technical literature and regulatory guidance were reviewed to ensure device performance considerations and compliance expectations were accurately reflected. In parallel, supply chain mapping identified concentration risks for critical inputs and highlighted the geographic distribution of manufacturing capacity relevant to sourcing and lead-time dynamics.
Triangulation across these data streams ensured robustness of findings; qualitative insights from practitioners provided context for technology adoption patterns and usability priorities, while supply-side analysis clarified material and component dependencies. The methodology emphasized transparency in assumptions, and findings were iteratively validated through expert review cycles to refine interpretations. This approach produced actionable intelligence that blends frontline clinical experience with operational and regulatory realities, enabling stakeholders to apply the report’s insights within commercial, procurement, and R&D decision-making processes.
Concise conclusion synthesizing how innovation, operational resilience, and regulatory alignment will determine competitive success and clinical adoption trajectories
In synthesis, the blood collection device sector is at an inflection point where technological innovation, shifting care delivery models, and supply chain imperatives converge to redefine product value propositions. Devices that combine robust pre-analytical performance with intuitive design, digital connectivity, and supply chain resilience will gain preference among procurement and clinical stakeholders. Regulatory and environmental pressures will continue to influence material selection and labeling, compelling manufacturers to demonstrate both analytical compatibility and lifecycle responsibility. Meanwhile, policy moves and trade dynamics have highlighted the importance of diversified sourcing and regional manufacturing strategies to maintain continuity of supply and control costs under fluctuating external conditions.
Going forward, organizations that integrate clinician-centered design, proactive supply chain planning, and strategic partnerships with diagnostic developers will be better positioned to respond to decentralized testing demands and evolving clinical workflows. The competitive landscape will favor firms that pair operational excellence with targeted service offerings, enabling faster adoption across hospitals, donation centers, and diagnostic laboratories. By aligning R&D priorities with end-user needs and regulatory expectations, stakeholders can accelerate the deployment of collection solutions that enhance sample integrity, improve workflow efficiency, and support patient-centric care models.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
182 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Adoption of closed system blood collection devices to minimize contamination risk and ensure sample integrity
- 5.2. Integration of smart blood collection tubes with RFID technology for automated sample tracking and traceability
- 5.3. Development of ultra-low volume pediatric blood collection devices to reduce patient discomfort and sample waste
- 5.4. Rise of needle-free blood collection systems leveraging microfluidic technologies for pain-free sampling
- 5.5. Growth in COVID-19 antigen and antibody blood collection kits driving demand for point-of-care testing
- 5.6. Surge in remote patient monitoring solutions using at-home blood collection devices and telehealth integration
- 5.7. Increasing regulatory focus on phlebotomy safety and needlestick prevention driving device innovation
- 5.8. Expansion of biobanking initiatives spurring demand for high-throughput blood collection automation solutions
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Blood Collection Devices Market, by Product Type
- 8.1. Blood Bags
- 8.2. Blood Collection Needles
- 8.2.1. Syringe Needles
- 8.2.2. Vacuum Needles
- 8.3. Blood Collection Tubes
- 8.3.1. EDTA Tubes
- 8.3.2. Heparin Tubes
- 8.3.3. Plasma Blood Tubes
- 8.3.4. Serum Tubes
- 8.4. Blood Lancets
- 9. Blood Collection Devices Market, by Technology
- 9.1. Automated Blood Collection Devices
- 9.2. Manual Blood Collection Devices
- 10. Blood Collection Devices Market, by Material
- 10.1. Glass
- 10.2. Plastic
- 10.3. Rubber
- 10.4. Stainless Steel
- 11. Blood Collection Devices Market, by Application
- 11.1. Diagnostics
- 11.2. Therapeutics
- 12. Blood Collection Devices Market, by End Users
- 12.1. Blood Donation Centers
- 12.2. Diagnostic Centers & Pathology Laboratory
- 12.3. Hospitals & Clinics
- 13. Blood Collection Devices Market, by Region
- 13.1. Americas
- 13.1.1. North America
- 13.1.2. Latin America
- 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 13.2.1. Europe
- 13.2.2. Middle East
- 13.2.3. Africa
- 13.3. Asia-Pacific
- 14. Blood Collection Devices Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Blood Collection Devices Market, by Country
- 15.1. United States
- 15.2. Canada
- 15.3. Mexico
- 15.4. Brazil
- 15.5. United Kingdom
- 15.6. Germany
- 15.7. France
- 15.8. Russia
- 15.9. Italy
- 15.10. Spain
- 15.11. China
- 15.12. India
- 15.13. Japan
- 15.14. Australia
- 15.15. South Korea
- 16. Competitive Landscape
- 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 16.3. Competitive Analysis
- 16.3.1. Abbott Laboratories
- 16.3.2. AdvaCare Pharma
- 16.3.3. Avanos Medical, Inc.
- 16.3.4. Avantor, Inc.
- 16.3.5. B. Braun SE
- 16.3.6. Becton, Dickinson and Company
- 16.3.7. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.
- 16.3.8. Biosigma S.p.A.
- 16.3.9. Cardinal Health, Inc.
- 16.3.10. Exelint International, Co.
- 16.3.11. Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA
- 16.3.12. Greiner AG
- 16.3.13. Haemonetics Corporation by GVS S.p.A.
- 16.3.14. ICU Medical, Inc.
- 16.3.15. Kawasumi Laboratories America, Inc.
- 16.3.16. Lasany International
- 16.3.17. Medtronic PLC
- 16.3.18. Merit Medical Systems, Inc.
- 16.3.19. Nipro Corporation
- 16.3.20. Sarstedt AG & Co. KG
- 16.3.21. Sekisui Medical Co., Ltd.
- 16.3.22. Siemens Healthineers AG
- 16.3.23. Terumo Corporation
- 16.3.24. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
