Comparing Computational Peritoneal Dialysis Models in Pigs and Patients

Computational models of peritoneal dialysis (PD) are increasingly useful for optimizing treatment in patients with kidney disease requiring dialysis (KDRD). However, although several mathematical models have been developed in the past few decades, a direct comparison of the models' accuracy with respect to predicting in vivo data is needed to further create robust personalized models. Here, we used a dataset obtained in a previous in vivo experimental model of PD in pigs (23 sessions of 4 h 2 L dwells in four pigs) and humans (20 sessions in 20 patients) to compare six computational models of PD: the Graff model (UGM), the three-pore model (TPM), the Garred model (GM), and the Waniewski model (WM), as well as two variations of these (UGM-18, SWM). We conducted this comparison to predict the dialysate concentrations of key uremic toxins and electrolytes (four in humans) throughout a 4 h dwell. The model predictions can provide insight into inter-individual differences in ultrafiltration, which are critical for tailoring PD regimens in KDRD. While TPM offered improved physiological reality, its computational cost suggests a trade-off between model complexity and clinical applicability for real-time or portable kidney support systems. In future applications, such models could provide adaptive PD regimens for tailored care based on patient-specific toxin kinetics and fluid dynamics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Toxins
Published
2025-06-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins17070329
Primary Topic
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing Computational Peritoneal Dialysis Models in Pigs and Patients

Joanna Stachowska-Piętka, Aurélie Carlier, Sangita Swapnasrita, Karin G. F. Gerritsen et al.
Toxins
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
article

Comparing Computational Peritoneal Dialysis Models in Pigs and Patients

Joanna Stachowska-Piętka, Aurélie Carlier, Sangita Swapnasrita, Karin G. F. Gerritsen, Carl M. Öberg, Joost C. de Vries
article en

Abstract

Computational models of peritoneal dialysis (PD) are increasingly useful for optimizing treatment in patients with kidney disease requiring dialysis (KDRD). However, although several mathematical models have been developed in the past few decades, a direct comparison of the models' accuracy with respect to predicting in vivo data is needed to further create robust personalized models. Here, we used a dataset obtained in a previous in vivo experimental model of PD in pigs (23 sessions of 4 h 2 L dwells in four pigs) and humans (20 sessions in 20 patients) to compare six computational models of PD: the Graff model (UGM), the three-pore model (TPM), the Garred model (GM), and the Waniewski model (WM), as well as two variations of these (UGM-18, SWM). We conducted this comparison to predict the dialysate concentrations of key uremic toxins and electrolytes (four in humans) throughout a 4 h dwell. The model predictions can provide insight into inter-individual differences in ultrafiltration, which are critical for tailoring PD regimens in KDRD. While TPM offered improved physiological reality, its computational cost suggests a trade-off between model complexity and clinical applicability for real-time or portable kidney support systems. In future applications, such models could provide adaptive PD regimens for tailored care based on patient-specific toxin kinetics and fluid dynamics.

ToxinsVol. 17(7)
Lund University (SE), Heidelberg University (DE), University Hospital Heidelberg (DE), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL), Maastricht University (NL), Skåne University Hospital (SE), Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering (PL), Polish Academy of Sciences (PL)
European Commission, Nierstichting
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.