About

Dixon Kaufman, MD, PhD, FACS, is a Professor in the Department of Surgery at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. He holds the titles of Ray D. Owen Professor in the Division of Transplantation and Medical Director of the UW Health Transplant Center. Dr. Kaufman completed his MD, PhD, and surgical training at the University of Minnesota, where he also received a NIH National Research Service Award. His clinical specialties include kidney, pancreas, and islet transplantation, and he was the first pancreas transplant surgeon in North America to conduct and publish studies on steroid-free immunosuppression in pancreas transplantation and to describe the use of alemtuzumab in pancreas transplants. His research interests focus on immunosuppression minimization in kidney transplant recipients, human clinical trials of islet transplantation, and the development of tolerance induction protocols in large animals supported by NIH funding. Dr. Kaufman is actively involved in professional societies such as the American Surgical Association, American Society of Transplant Surgeons, and the Transplantation Society, and has held leadership roles including President of the ASTS and positions within UNOS. His contributions to the field include numerous publications and leadership in transplant education and policy.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Internal medicine
• Surgery
• Intensive care medicine
• Endocrinology
• Political Science
• Biology
• Immunology
• Gastroenterology
• Law
• General surgery
• Urology
• Oncology
• Genetics

Selected publications

• Dual Kidney Transplantation Offers Prolonged Graft Survival

  Clinical Transplantation · 2026-02-01

  articleOpen access

  INTRODUCTION: Dual kidney transplantation (DKT), an uncommonly performed procedure, provides a unique opportunity to transplant nonstandard kidneys that might otherwise not be utilized. We compared perioperative and five-year posttransplant outcomes between DKT, and single kidney transplants (SKT) performed at our institution. METHODS: We analyzed all adult deceased donor kidney-alone transplant recipients at our center between 2001 and 2020. Recipients of pediatric en bloc kidney transplants were excluded. Perioperative outcomes of interest included delayed graft function (DGF), posttransplant length of stay (LOS), rehospitalization, and reoperation. Five-year outcomes included biopsy-proven acute rejection (AR), death-censored graft failure (DCGF), uncensored graft failure (UCGF), and death with functioning graft (DWFG). RESULTS: A total of 100 DKT and 3125 SKT recipients were included. DKT recipients were older (p < 0.001), more often male (68%), and more often underwent early steroid withdrawal (p = 0.04). In comparison to SKT, after adjustment for multiple variables, DKT was not independently associated with DGF (aOR: 1.25; 95% CI 0.76-2.08); prolonged LOS (linear coefficient 0.42; -0.9-1.7); reoperation (aOR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.21-2.51) or rehospitalization (aOR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55-1.74). However, within five years, DKT had a lower adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) for AR (aIRR: 0.28; CI 0.12-0.64); DCGF (aIRR: 0.30; 95% CI 0.13-0.68), and UCGF (aIRR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.33-0.86), without statistically significant differences in DWFG (aIRR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.46-1.53). CONCLUSION: In selected recipients, DKT offered superior medium-term outcomes compared to SKT without compromising perioperative outcomes. DKT can mitigate concerns associated with medically complex donor kidneys, increase organ utilization, and increase access to transplantation.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Importing pancreata for transplantation: a single-center experience across evolving allocation eras

  Frontiers in Transplantation · 2025-12-18

  articleOpen access

  Recent changes to allocation systems have increased the geographic distribution of pancreas offers, often originating from outside a transplant center's donor service area or region. The impact of this wider sharing on outcomes remains uncertain. This study analyzed outcomes of primary pancreas transplants (2000-2018) at a large transplant center, stratified retrospectively on the nautical miles distance from the donor hospital. Primary endpoints were death-censored graft survival (DC-GS), patient survival, and graft thrombosis at different time points. No significant differences were found in DC-GS or patient survival for recipients of simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK), pancreas after kidney (PAK), or pancreas transplant alone (PTA), regardless of the distance from the donor hospital to the transplant center. Thrombosis rates were comparable across groups. Imported pancreata were from younger donors with lower BMI compared to locally recovered grafts. These findings support the notion that importing pancreata for transplantation is a feasible and safe practice that benefits patients, increases organ utilization, while benefiting transplant center volume data and reducing waiting times for patients. Encouraging wider importation may reduce waiting times and improve access to pancreas transplantation.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Early Steroid Withdrawal in Kidney Transplant Recipients: COMMENTARY

  Kidney360 · 2025-02-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Corticosteroids are the most versatile, frequently used, longest-standing, inexpensive, and controversial medications prescribed for transplant immunosuppression. While these drugs have undeniable benefits as induction agents, maintenance agents, and antirejection therapies, their adverse side effect profile have prompted ongoing debates regarding their long-term use; optimal dosages; and whether, in whom, and when they can be eliminated from maintenance therapy treatment protocols. Traditionally, corticosteroids are administered at high doses during the initial post-transplant period (little controversy), followed by a taper to lower maintenance doses over a period as short as 3 days (rapid elimination), a week or so (rapid taper and elimination), or continued indefinitely and slowly tapered over 1–3 months to a final dose in the range of 5–10 mg per day. Despite their effectiveness, corticosteroids are associated with a wide range of side effects, most of which being time dependent and irreversible. In the very short term, during the induction phase with high dosing, early post-transplant hyperglycemia requiring temporary exogenous insulin therapy not infrequently occurs. Hypertension and fluid weight gain are also temporarily exacerbated. These resolve reasonably quickly during the index hospital stay (sometimes prolonging hospitalization) and early post-transplant out-patient course because the dosage rapidly decreases or the medications stopped. Where the crux of the controversy centers is the long-term and continuous use of corticosteroids throughout the patient's lifespan with a transplanted organ. This is where the risks, most irreversible, caused by chronic corticosteroid use becomes more concerning to patients: weight gain, hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, sleeplessness, anxiety, and an increased susceptibility to infections. The chronic use of corticosteroids can also lead to Cushing syndrome, characterized by symptoms like moon face, fat redistribution, and skin changes and growth retardation in children. In years past when less effective combinations of maintenance immunosuppressive agents were available, corticosteroids were a critical component (e.g., azathioprine and prednisone; azathioprine, cyclosporine, and prednisone), and the side effects were the necessary trade-offs for avoiding rejection and graft loss to live a life free from chronic dialysis (or death). However, as stronger and more effective immunosuppressive therapeutics were developed (including biologics) and anti-infectious prophylaxis and therapeutics evolved, new combination maintenance immunosuppression alternatives were developed as used today. The question naturally arose whether continuous corticosteroid use was still needed and worth the tradeoffs of side effects and diminished quality of life. This led to a very active period of single-center and, eventually, multicenter, randomized clinical trials and registry reports, examining the outcomes of corticosteroid-sparing and corticosteroid-free regimens, as referenced in the PRO and CON sections.1,2 One of the difficulties in addressing the merits of the debating positions relates to the context of the clinical scenario being evaluated. This can introduce complexity in trying to settle the debate when it is unrecognized that the different sides are examining different aspects of the multitude of variations pertaining to steroid-sparing. Agreeing where to focus is an important beginning. Corticosteroid-Sparing and Corticosteroid-Free Regimens: The Debate The move toward eliminating corticosteroids in kidney transplantation had been tested before the availability of tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. It did not go well. One of the most concerning reports of the failure of late corticosteroid withdrawal still exerts a sobering effect on the judgment of steroid elimination protocols.3 In fact, late withdrawal is probably not controversial and is still considered by most practitioners to be considered inadvisable. Therefore, the emphasis has focused on two corticosteroid elimination approaches. It is between those choices versus continuous corticosteroid use where the debate is most relevant. The controversy lies in balancing the benefits of reducing corticosteroid exposure with the risks of underimmunosuppression. When considering risks in this context, it is important to differentiate the risk of a rejection episode (relevant) from that of immediate graft loss (rare). While some trials demonstrate that these regimens can reduce side effects without significantly increasing rejection rates, others report elevated incidences of acute rejection, especially in high-risk patients. The higher risk recipients may include retransplant recipients, highly sensitized recipients, pancreas-kidney transplant recipients, and those with an underlying cause of nephropathy from autoimmune etiologies. Another aspect of the debate revolves around how to apply corticosteroid elimination, if at all. Minimizing the risk of early rejection in recipients receiving a corticosteroid rapid elimination immunosuppression approach is commonly prevented by pairing it with a strong antilymphocyte depletion induction therapy approach using antilymphocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. However, there are several recipient populations in which lymphocyte depletion is a relative contraindication due to risk of overimmunosuppression. These groups include those at advanced age with or without significant comorbidities or retransplant recipients having been exposed to maintenance immunosuppression for many years. These complexities of immunosuppression management challenge a one-size-fits-all approach and is not at the center of the debate. Evidence-Based Clinical Trials Numerous clinical trials have examined the outcomes of corticosteroid-sparing and corticosteroid-free protocols that support both positions of continuation or discontinuation, as nicely referenced by our contributors. Given the mixed evidence, professional guidelines for corticosteroid use in kidney transplantation remain somewhat varied. Early on (year 2000), the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommended a cautious approach to corticosteroid withdrawal, emphasizing that such strategies should only be considered in low-risk patients with close monitoring.4 Later on, there were meta-analyses, registry studies, multicenter studies, and single-center experiences that described successful approaches in many recipient subpopulations.5 There are now studies pushing beyond steroid withdrawal that also include calcineurin inhibitor avoidance.6 However, in many transplant centers today, a middle-ground approach is commonly used: Corticosteroids are administered during the early post-transplant period, followed either by gradual tapering over 1–3 months and continuation at a low dose (e.g., 5 mg daily) or early discontinuation between 3 and 7 days post-transplant in selected patients. These approaches attempt to leverage the benefits of corticosteroids in preventing early rejection while minimizing long-term exposure and its associated complications. As the controversy around corticosteroid use continues, the future may lie in more personalized approaches to immunosuppressive therapy. Biomarkers and genetic profiling are established tools that help identify which patients are at higher risk for rejection and which are more likely to tolerate corticosteroid minimization. For example, the development of noninvasive tests that monitor immune activity, such as donor-derived cellfree DNA and gene expression profiling, could allow for more precise tailoring of immunosuppressive regimens. These advancements could lead to a new era where corticosteroid use is determined not by a one-size-fits-all approach, but by individual patient profiles. This would potentially allow for more effective management of immunosuppression, reducing side effects while minimizing the risk of rejection. Conclusion Kidney transplantation is a life-saving and life-enhancing procedure for patients suffering from ESKD. It involves a complex array of medical management approaches, particularly in preventing organ rejection that presumes achieving years of functional outcomes for each patient. The controversy surrounding corticosteroid use in kidney transplantation reflects the challenge of balancing efficacy and safety in immunosuppressive therapy that will meet our and our patients' expectations. The body of evidence surrounding corticosteroid use in kidney transplantation is vast and nuanced. While corticosteroid-free and corticosteroid-sparing regimens offer the promise of fewer side effects and improved quality of life, they may also carry a heightened risk of acute rejection, depending on the multimodal immunosuppression approach and in which population of recipients it is being used. The decision to pursue such regimens must be individualized, taking into account the immunological risk, available monitoring tools, and the overall treatment goals. This involves considerations of critical factors of, and beyond, the immunosuppression that affect rejection and graft loss risk. Such additional considerations include health care literacy, social support structures, ability to stay adherent, distance from the transplant center, the centers' abilities to closely follow the recipient throughout the lifespan of their allograft, etc. As research continues to evolve and new agents are developed, it is likely that more personalized and precise approaches to corticosteroid management will emerge, potentially resolving some of the long-standing controversies in this critical area of kidney transplantation. While corticosteroids remain a cornerstone of post-transplant management, the desire to reduce their long-term side effects has spurred the development of alternative regimens. The ongoing debate is unlikely to be resolved soon because it involves complex considerations, including individual patient risk, emerging therapies, and evolving evidence. Ultimately, the decision to use, taper, or withdraw corticosteroids must be personalized, weighing the potential benefits against the risks that are understood for and by each patient.

  PublisherDOI

• Kidney Delayed Graft Function in Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplant Recipients Is Associated With Inferior Outcomes

  Transplantation Direct · 2025-04-17 · 3 citations

  articleOpen access

  Background. Kidney delayed graft function (K-DGF) is associated with worse outcomes in simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) recipients. However, its potential association with specific infections, rejection, and early complications remains unclear. Methods. We compared recipients with K-DGF to those without K-DGF among all adult SPK recipients transplanted at our center between January 2000 and December 2022 who had &gt;2 wk of pancreas graft survival. Outcomes of interest included common posttransplant infections, including urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia, cytomegalovirus, BK, surgical wound infection, infected intra-abdominal fluid collection, graft rejection, and death-censored graft failure (DCGF) within the first year of transplant. We also looked for the need for early laparotomy within 90 d. Results. Seven hundred sixty-five SPK recipients were included, of whom 85 (11.1%) developed K-DGF. In Cox regression analysis, after adjustment for multiple key variables, K-DGF was associated/related with increased risk for UTI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-0.94; P = 0.03), infected intra-abdominal fluid collection (aHR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.13-4.04; P = 0.02), and need for relaparotomy within 90 d (aHR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.27-3.37; P = 0.003). K-DGF was also associated with increased risk for pancreas DCGF (aHR, 4.88; 95% CI, 1.90-12.51; P &lt; 0.001). K-DGF was not associated with risk for other common infections of interest or graft rejection. Conclusions. K-DGF among SPK recipients is associated with an increased risk of UTI, infected intra-abdominal fluid collection, and the need for early relaparotomy, along with pancreas DCGF. Close monitoring and appropriate management are warranted in this higher-risk patient population.

  PublisherDOI

• Predicted Indirectly Recognizable T-cell Epitope (PIRCHE) Load Correlates With Rejection Events After Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation

  Transplantation Direct · 2025-02-07 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access

  Background: Given the lack of specificity of current blood and urine testing and the resistance/inability to perform pancreas allograft biopsies, additional noninvasive investigational tools to assess the risk for rejection are needed. This study examines the clinical impact of molecular HLA matching in a large single-center simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant program. Methods: The study cohort comprised 238 SPK recipients between 2012 and 2021. The number of HLA mismatches, eplet, Snow (that counts the number of protein-specific surface-accessible donor HLA amino acid mismatches), and predicted indirectly recognizable T-cell epitope (PIRCHE, version 4.2; 100%) loads were calculated on the basis of 2-field HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1 typing of recipients and donors. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard, as well as Kaplan-Meier analyses, were performed considering either first rejection events of a graft or a composite endpoint of de novo donor-specific antibodies, first rejection, and uncensored graft failure of either organ. Results: Kaplan-Meier analyses considered class II PIRCHE groups separated by a threshold of 7. From the considered histocompatibility metrics, multivariable regression analysis revealed only PIRCHE-II derived from donor HLA class II as statistically significantly correlated with clinical events and rejection after SPK, mostly driven by pancreas rejections. Furthermore, longer dialysis time and the induction agent had significant negative impacts on the defined composite endpoint. Conclusions: Our data support the clinical benefit of incorporating PIRCHE scores for the interpretation of class II HLA mismatches among patients undergoing SPK transplantation.

  PublisherDOI

• Use of Cross-Sectional Imaging Body Composition Assessment to Predict Pancreas Transplant Outcomes

  Transplant International · 2025-10-01

  letterOpen access

  Dear Editors, Obesity has traditionally been a relative contraindication to pancreas transplantation due to concerns about the association between obesity and elevated peri-operative risk as well as development of post-transplant insulin resistance (1). However, studies have shown equivalent outcomes between overweight and non-overweight simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant (SPK) patients based on the low body mass index (BMI) cutoff of 28 (2, 3). The impact of more pronounced obesity, and how that is classified, on pancreas transplant outcomes remains unknown. Although easy to calculate, BMI does not account for differences in fat distribution between ethnicities, genders, sex, age, and genetic backgrounds. Cross-sectional imaging allows more granular evaluation of a patient's body composition, including direct measurement of visceral and subcutaneous adiposity and assessment of associated sarcopenia. Individual variation in adipose distribution may be particularly important to assessing risk in pancreas transplant recipients because of the prominence of visceral adiposity in the metabolic syndrome and the development of insulin resistance (4). Studies incorporating CT-based metrics have associated visceral adiposity with poor outcomes following many types of surgery, including liver and kidney transplantation (5-7). The only prior study assessing CT metrics of body composition in pancreas transplantation described a protective effect of adipose tissue on the risk of postoperative complications but was limited by a small sample size of both obese (n=6) and overall (N=40) patients (8). Therefore, the impact of body composition on pancreas transplant outcomes remains unknown. We performed a retrospective, single-center study analyzing the preoperative CT scans of adult, first-time pancreas transplant recipients between 2012-2020 to determine the relationship between visceral adiposity, sarcopenia, and post-transplant outcomes. Visceral adiposity was defined separately in men and women as the quartile of patients with the highest visceral adipose tissue-to-subcutanoues adipose tissue ratio (0.84 in men and 0.51 in women). Sarcopenia was defined similarly as the quartile of patients with the lowest SMI (<51.2 cm2/m2 in men and <43.1 cm2/m2 in women). Detailed Materials and Methods can be found in the Supplemental Data. The study included 204 pancreas transplant recipients, 146 (71%) with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and 58 (29%) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The mean follow-up was 4.9  2.4 years. Patients with visceral adiposity were older (50.7  10.0 vs 46.6  10.0, p=0.01) and had a higher incidence of T2DM (20/52 vs 38/152, p=0.046). Fifteen patients (7%) met criteria for both visceral adiposity and sarcopenia. Patients with visceral adiposity received organs from younger donors (23.3  11.9 vs 27.6  25.6, p=0.02). Donor sex, age, donation after circulatory death status, pancreas donor risk index, cold ischemic time, hospital length of stay, readmission within 30 days, and incidence of delayed graft function were similar between the groups (Supplemental Table 1). Visceral adiposity was associated with decreased patient survival post-transplant (p=0.04, Fig 1A) but not decreased pancreatic graft survival (p=0.25, Fig 1B). Sarcopenia did not impact patient (p=0.24) or pancreatic graft survival (p=0.49). Among SPK recipients, sarcopenia was associated with decreased kidney allograft survival (p=0.03, Fig 1C). Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) was not impacted by either exposure (p=0.49 for visceral adiposity and p=0.53 for sarcopenia). Because the end-organ effects of diabetes are different in patients based on type of diabetes and in those receiving SPK versus pancreas transplant alone (PTA), we hypothesized that body composition may impact these patients differently. We therefore performed subgroup analysis based on type of diabetes and transplant type. In SPK recipients with T1DM, visceral adiposity remained associated with decreased patient survival (hazard ratio [HR] 3.60, p=0.03, Fig 1E) and sarcopenia remained associated with decreased kidney allograft survival (HR 2.69, p=0.03, Fig 1E). Neither visceral adiposity nor sarcopenia impacted outcomes in SPK recipients with T2DM or in PTA recipients with T1DM. This eight-year experience represents the largest examination of the impact of body composition on pancreas transplant outcomes and has two principal findings. First, visceral adiposity is associated with decreased patient survival following pancreas transplant. Second, sarcopenia is associated with worse kidney allograft survival in SPK recipients. In subgroup analysis, these findings were restricted to SPKs recipients with T1DM. The general association of visceral adiposity and sarcopenia with worse outcomes following pancreas transplant is consistent with results reported following other varieties of surgery. More surprising is the lack of impact of visceral adiposity on either pancreatic allograft survival or PTDM given the well-reported correlation between visceral adiposity, metabolic syndrome, and insulin resistance and the previously reported association of visceral adiposity and PTDM in kidney transplant recipients (9). The finding that the adverse impacts of visceral adiposity and sarcopenia were confined to recipients with T1DM suggests that the impact of body composition may vary based on type of diabetes. This conclusion is consistent with recent work suggesting that genetic subtypes of adipose distribution have a differential impact on T2DM risk (10). This analysis has several limitations. First, there are not consensus definitions of visceral adiposity and sarcopenia in this patient population. We attempted to mitigate this limitation by analyzing our data with different thresholds including median values of each sex and other published criteria and saw only minor differences. Second, the sample size is relatively small and may be underpowered for subtle differences. Finally, the study is retrospective and only captures results from patients who were robust enough to complete the pancreas transplant evaluation process. Patients with severe visceral adiposity and/or sarcopenia may have been excluded through other related criteria, including BMI cutoffs and frailty assessments. This study underscores that visceral adiposity and sarcopenia adversely impact pancreas transplant outcomes. Evolving technology, including the use of artificial intelligence to rapidly and objectively calculate metrics of body composition, can facilitate assessment of these variables in pancreas transplant candidate evaluation and may help define more concrete thresholds. Moreover, these metrics can trigger effective steps to help patients with visceral adiposity or sarcopenia reduce their post-transplant risks through measures like anti-obesity medication and proactive physical rehabilitation. Shifting evaluation criteria toward assessment of body composition instead of BMI might allow more patients to qualify for pancreas transplantation while safeguarding excellent post-transplant results. List of Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; HR: hazard ratio; PTA: pancreas transplant alone; PTDM: post-transplant diabetes mellitus; SMI: skeletal muscle index; SPK: simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant; T1DM: type 1 diabetes mellitus; T2DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus. Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrating the impact of (A) visceral adiposity on patient survival, (B) visceral adiposity on pancreas allograft survival, (C) sarcopenia on patient survival, and (D) sarcopenia on kidney allograft survival. (E) Subgroup analysis of hazard ratios of adverse outcomes following pancreas transplantation.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Induction of immune tolerance in living related human leukocyte antigen–matched kidney transplantation: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial

  American Journal of Transplantation · 2025-02-06 · 12 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Five years outcomes of recipients of dual kidney transplantation are better compared to the single kidney transplantation with comparable early post-transplant complications

  American Journal of Transplantation · 2025-01-01

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Challenge of Minding the Glomerular Filtration Rate Gap Between Pancreas Transplant Alone and Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation: Stuck in the Middle

  Transplantation · 2025-03-25

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Pre-Transplant Hypoalbuminemia Is Not Associated With Early Key Outcomes Among Simultaneous Pancreas and Kidney Transplant Recipients

  Transplant International · 2025-01-20 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access

  The role of pre-transplant hypoalbuminemia and its impact on post-transplant outcomes in patients undergoing simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation remains unclear. We analyzed all SPK recipients at our center, who had at least 2 weeks of pancreas and kidney graft survival and had serum albumin measured within 45 days pre-transplant. Recipients were categorized based on pretransplant albumin level as normal (≥4.0 g/dL, N = 222, 42%), mild hypoalbuminemia (≥3.5-<4.0 g/dL, N = 190, 36%), and moderate hypoalbuminemia (<3.5 g/dL, N = 120, 23%). Kidney delayed graft function (DGF), length of stay (LOS) after transplant, re-hospitalization within 30 days after discharge, and need for a return to the operating room (OR) related to transplant surgical complications, acute rejection, and uncensored and death-censored graft failure, within the first years post-transplant were outcomes of interest. A total of 532 SPK recipients were included. Mild or moderate hypoalbuminemia was not associated with DGF, LOS, re-hospitalization, or return to the OR in unadjusted or adjusted analyses. Similarly, mild or moderate hypoalbuminemia was not associated with a risk of graft rejection or graft failure. Among SPK recipients, pre-transplant hypoalbuminemia was not associated with worse outcomes and should not be the determining factor in selecting patients for SPK transplant.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Recent grants

• NIH Grant R01DK052919

  NIH · $724k · 2001

• Tomotherapy and Hematopoietic Stem Cells for Tolerance to Kidney Transplants

  NIH · $16.6M · 2012–2024

• NIH Grant R01DK063565

  NIH · $1.4M · 2006

• NIH Grant U01AI089316

  NIH · $3.4M · 2012

• Tomotherapy and Hematopoietic Stem Cells for Tolerance to Kidney Transplants

  NIH · $2.6M · 2012–2016

Frequent coauthors

• Jon S. Odorico

  86 shared

• David E.R. Sutherland

  Loyola University Medical Center

  58 shared

• Joseph R. Leventhal

  Northwestern University

  53 shared

• Frank P. Stuart

  51 shared

• Didier A. Mandelbrot

  University of Wisconsin Health

  45 shared

• Sandesh Parajuli

  44 shared

• Jonathan P. Fryer

  43 shared

• Arjang Djamali

  University of Wisconsin–Madison

  42 shared

Awards & honors

• All-America Top Doctors Surgery Best Doctors in America Awar…
• Madison Magazine Top Docs 2014 Award
• Avant-Garde Health General Surgery Research All-Stars (2024)