The viscous behaviour of HES 130/0.4 (Voluven) and HES 260/0.45 (Pentaspan) Comportement visqueux de HES 130/0,4 (Voluven) et de HES 260/0,45 (Pentaspan)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Several fluids are available for volume therapy to address hypovolemia. We focus on two hydroxyethyl starches (HES) available for volume expansion in Canada, HES 130/0.4 (Voluven) and HES 260/0.45 (Pentaspan). Although information is available regarding their pharmacokinetic and risk/benefit profiles, this paper examines their viscous properties. Methods Dynamic viscosities of HES 130/0.4 and HES 260/0.45 were measured through capillary viscometry at 21C and 37C. The viscosities of the solutions were then measured through a closed flow loop at room temperature across physiologically relevant flow rates that maintained a laminar flow regime. Results Measured dynamic viscosity through capillary viscometry for HES 130/0.4 and HES 260/0.45 was 2.76 centipoises (cP) and 7.62 cP, respectively, at 21C decreasing to 1.74 cP and 4.25 cP, respectively, at 37C. Pipe flow analysis found that HES 130/0.4 (expiry 02/13) and HES 260/0.45 (expiry 10/10) displayed marginal variation in viscosity suggesting Newtonian behaviour. However, a sample of HES 130/0.4 (expiry 10/10) displayed an appreciable increase in viscosity (13%) at higher flow rates suggesting shear thickening behaviour. Conclusion This study represents an innovative characterization of not only the viscosity of two commonly utilized HES solutions but also their viscous behaviour across physiologically relevant flow rates. The shear thickening behaviour of a sample of HES 130/0.40 (expiry 10/10) at high flow rates was not expected, and the effect this result may have on endothelial cell function is unknown.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".