PURPOSE: Plastic materials such as polyurethane (PUR), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are widely used in double-lumen extension tubing. The purposes of our study were to 1) compare in vitro drug delivery through the double extension tubes available on the market 2) assess the plastic properties of PUR in infusion devices and their impact on drug delivery. METHODS: The study compared eight double-lumen extension tubes in PUR, co-extruded (PE/PVC) plastic and plasticised PVC from different manufacturers. Isosorbide dinitrate and diazepam were used as model compounds to evaluate their sorption on the internal surface of the infusion device. Control experiments were performed using norepinephrine known not to absorb to plastics. Drug concentrations delivered at the egress of extension tubes were determined over time by an analytical spectrophotometric UV-Vis method. The main characteristics of plastics were also determined. RESULTS: Significant differences in the sorption phenomenon were observed among the eight double-lumen extension tubes and between pairs of extension tubes. Mean concentrations of isosorbide dinitrate delivered at the egress of double-lumen extension tubes after a 150-minute infusion (mean values ± standard deviation in percentage of the initial concentrations in the prepared syringes) ranged between 80.53 ± 1.66 (one of the PUR tubes) and 92.84 ± 2.73 (PE/PVC tube). The same parameters measured during diazepam infusion ranged between 48.58 ± 2.88 (one of the PUR tubes) and 85.06 ± 3.94 (PE/PVC tube). The double-lumen extension tubes in PUR were either thermosetting (resin) or thermoplastic according to reference. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians must be aware of potential drug interactions with extension tube materials and so must consider their nature as well as the sterilisation method used before selecting an infusion device.