<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0003-3170</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Angiología]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Angiología]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0003-3170</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Arán Ediciones S.L.]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0003-31702020000400002</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.20960/angiologia.00101</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="es"><![CDATA[Análisis de la repercusión hemodinámica de dispositivos de protección embólica de red en un modelo in vitro]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Hemodynamic impact analysis of mesh-type embolic protection devices in an in vitro model]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sánchez Nevárez]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Manuel Ignacio]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Plana Andani]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Emma]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Miralles Hernández]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Manuel]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="Af1">
<institution><![CDATA[,Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe Servicio de Angiología y Cirugía Vascular ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Valencia ]]></addr-line>
<country>España</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af2">
<institution><![CDATA[,Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe Grupo de Hemostasia, Trombosis, Arteriosclerosis y Biología Vascular ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Valencia ]]></addr-line>
<country>España</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af3">
<institution><![CDATA[,Universidad de Valencia Departamento de Cirugía ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Valencia ]]></addr-line>
<country>España</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>08</month>
<year>2020</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>08</month>
<year>2020</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>72</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<fpage>178</fpage>
<lpage>185</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0003-31702020000400002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0003-31702020000400002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0003-31702020000400002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="es"><p><![CDATA[Resumen  Introducción: los dispositivos de protección embólica tipo red para procedimientos endovasculares carotídeos (DPEr) son de uso habitual. Su objetivo es disminuir el riesgo de embolia cerebral secundaria a la manipulación y rotura de placa. Sus diferentes características hacen sospechar un distinto comportamiento que puede afectar a su eficacia.  Objetivo: valorar la repercusión hemodinámica provocada por los DPEr analizando su resistencia al flujo en un modelo hemodinámico in vitro y comparar los resultados entre distintos dispositivos.  Materiales y métodos: se construyó un modelo de flujo pulsátil con suero salino fisiológico (SSF) y se estudiaron 4 DPEr distintos con 5 mediciones por dispositivo para conocer el gradiente de presión en mmHg y resistencia en unidades de resistencia periférica (URP) antes y después de su despliegue. Se utilizó la prueba de los rangos con signo de Wilcoxon para datos pareados y el análisis de dos vías de Friedman de varianza por rangos de muestras. Se consideraron significativos los resultados con una p &lt; 0,05.  Resultados: se realizaron 60 mediciones: 10 basales, 10 con catéter portador y 40 con filtro desplegado. El DPEr1 presentó la mayor resistencia (0,88 ± 0,04 URP), significativamente mayor al resto (p = 0,041). El DPEr4 tuvo una resistencia mayor a DPEr2 y DPEr3 (0,70 ± 0,02 frente a 0,57 ± 0,08 y 0,57 ± 0,02 URP, respectivamente), aunque no significativa (p = 0,78). No se observaron diferencias entre los DPEr2 y DPEr3. La forma de cono simétrica se asoció con mayor resistencia (p = 0,002). No se observaron diferencias de los parámetros medidos en función del material de fabricación.  Conclusiones: existen diferencias en los DPEr en cuanto a resistencia al flujo que dependen de su diseño y porosidad. Los DPEr con mayor resistencia son el DPEr1 y DPEr4, mientras que el DPEr2 ofrece la menor resistencia al flujo en detrimento de su eficacia.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Abstract  Introduction: mesh-type embolic protection devices for carotid endovascular procedures (DPEr) are commonly used, their objective is to reduce the risk of cerebral embolism secondary to plaque manipulation and rupture. Their different characteristics make suspect a different behavior that can affect its effectiveness.  Objective: to assess the hemodynamic impact caused by DPEr by analyzing their resistance to flow in an in vitro hemodynamic flow model and compare the results between different devices.  Materials and methods: an in vitro pulsatile flow model with physiological saline serum (SSF) was constructed. Four different DPEr were studied with 5 measurements per device to know the pressure gradient in mmHg and resistance in peripheral resistance units (URP) before and after its deployment. The Wilcoxon signed ranges test and Friedman´s two-way analysis of variance by sample ranges were used. Significant results were considered with a p &lt; 0.05  Results: 60 measurements were made: 10 baselines, 10 with carrier catheter and 40 with unfolded filter. The DPEr1 presented the highest resistance (0.88 ± 0.04 URP) significantly higher than the rest (p = 0.041). DPEr4 had a greater resistance to DPEr2 and DPEr3 (0.70 ± 0.02 vs. 0.57 ± 0.08 and 0.57 ± 0.02 URP) although not significant (p = 0.70). No differences were observed between DPEr2 and DPEr3. The symmetrical cone shape was associated with greater resistance (p = 0.002). No differences in the measured parameters were observed depending on the manufacturing material.  Conclusions: there are differences in DPEr in terms of resistance to flow that depend on their design and porosity. The DPEr with the highest resistance are the DPEr1 and DPEr4 while the DPEr2 offers the least resistance to flow at the expense of its effectiveness.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Filtro]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Endovascular]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Carótida]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Modelo]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Hemodinámica]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Mesh]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Endovascular]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Carotid]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Model]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Hemodynamic]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mas]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JL]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Chatellier]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Beyssen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting With and Without Cerebral Protection: Clinical Alert From the Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) Trial]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Stroke]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>35</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>1-5</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Eckstein]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H-H]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ringleb]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Allenberg]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J-R]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Results of the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) study to treat symptomatic stenoses at 2 years:a multinational, prospective, randomised trial]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Lancet Neurol]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>7</volume>
<numero>10</numero>
<issue>10</issue>
<page-range>893-902</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Brott]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[TG]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Howard]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Roubin]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GS]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Long-term results of stenting versus endarterectomy for carotid-artery stenosis]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[N Engl J Med]]></source>
<year>2016</year>
<volume>374</volume>
<numero>11</numero>
<issue>11</issue>
<page-range>1021-31</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Mousa]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AY]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Campbell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JE]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Aburahma]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AF]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Current update of cerebral embolic protection devices]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Vasc Surg]]></source>
<year>2012</year>
<volume>56</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>1429-37</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Siewiorek]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Finol]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EA]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Computational modeling of distal protection filters]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Endovasc Ther]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>17</volume>
<numero>6</numero>
<issue>6</issue>
<page-range>777-88</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Guyton]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AC]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hall]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Visión general de la circulación;biofísica de la presión, el flujo y la resistencia]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Tratado de Fisiología Médica]]></source>
<year>2011</year>
<edition>12th</edition>
<page-range>157-66</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Barcelona ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Elsevier España]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Siewiorek]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Eskandari]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Finol]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EA]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[The AngioguardTM embolic protection device]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Expert Rev Med Devices]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>5</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>287-96</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Siewiorek]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wholey]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MH]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Finol]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EA]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Vascular resistance in the carotid artery: an in vitro investigation of embolic protection filters]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Vasc Interv Radiol]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>19</volume>
<numero>10</numero>
<issue>10</issue>
<page-range>1467-76</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Siewiorek]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wholey]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MH]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Finol]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EA]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[In vitro performance assessment of distal protection devices for carotid artery stenting: effect of physiological anatomy on vascular resistance]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Endovasc Ther]]></source>
<year>2007</year>
<volume>14</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>712-24</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hendriks]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Zindler]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JD]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Lugt]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A van der]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Embolic protection filters for carotid stenting: differences in flow obstruction depending on filter construction]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Endovasc Ther]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
<volume>13</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>47-50</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kurzhals]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Matthies]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JB]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Andresen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Investigation of the pressure gradient of embolic protection devices]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Curr Dir Biomed Eng]]></source>
<year>2016</year>
<volume>2</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>359-62</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Müller-Hülsbeck]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jahnke]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[T]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Liess]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Comparison of various cerebral protection devices used for carotid artery stent placement: An in vitro experiment]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Vasc Interv Radiol]]></source>
<year>2003</year>
<volume>14</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>613-20</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Matthies]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J-B]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kurzhals]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Schmidt]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[W]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Test setup for characterizing the efficacy of embolic protection devices]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Curr Dir Biomed Eng]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>1</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Loghmanpour]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[NA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Siewiorek]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wanamaker]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[KM]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Assessing the impact of distal protection filter design characteristics on 30-day outcomes of carotid artery stenting procedures]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Vasc Surg]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
<volume>57</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>309-17</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Finol]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Siewiorek]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Scotti]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CM]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Wall apposition assessment and performance comparison of distal protection filters]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Endovasc Ther]]></source>
<year>2008</year>
<volume>15</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>177-85</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
