Liver transplantation at safety net hospitals: Potentially vulnerable patients with noninferior outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing complex surgery at safety net hospitals have been shown to suffer inferior short-term outcomes. Liver transplantation, one of the most complex surgical interventions, is offered at certain safety net hospitals. We sought to identify whether patients undergoing liver transplantation at safety net hospitals have inferior outcomes compared with lower burden centers. METHODS: Using a link between the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient databases, we identified 11,047 patients undergoing liver transplantation at 63 centers between 2009 and 2012. Hospitals were grouped by safety net burden, defined as the proportion of Medicaid or uninsured patient encounters during that time. The highest quartile (safety net hospitals) was compared to medium- and low-burden hospitals regarding recipient and donor characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival. RESULTS: Liver transplantation recipients at safety net hospitals were more often black and of lower socioeconomic status (P < .01), but had similar model for end-stage liver disease scores (20 vs 20 vs 18) compared with median-burden hospitals and low burden hospitals. Length of stay and readmission rates were similar; however, safety net hospitals demonstrated higher in-hospital mortality (5.2% vs 4.5% vs 2.9%, P < .01). Despite this, there was no significant difference in overall patient or graft survivals in patients who underwent liver transplantation at safety net hospitals and survived the perioperative setting at a median follow-up of 2 years (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in perioperative outcomes at safety net hospitals, these centers achieve noninferior long-term patient and graft survival for potentially vulnerable patients requiring liver transplantation. Strict care standardization, as achieved in liver transplantation, may be a mechanism by which outcomes can be improved at safety net hospitals after other complex surgical procedures.

Programmatic change leads to enhanced resource utilization and efficiency in port placement.

BACKGROUND: Central venous port (CVP) placement is performed by a variety of surgeons in different subspecialties, and our previous work suggests that individual surgeons-regardless of training-are the strongest predictor of outcomes. We sought to prospectively evaluate a programmatic shift toward a resource-conscious, patient-focused algorithm for this common and simple surgical procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After implementation of a systems-level program for efficient CVP placement, 78 CVPs were placed by a single surgeon. Primary outcomes were procedure time, total operating room (OR) time, total facility time, and procedure-related complications. These prospective data were compared with retrospective cohorts of surgically placed and interventional radiology-placed CVP. Demographic data were analyzed by chi-square analysis, whereas time data were analyzed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: The programmatic delivery (prospective) set showed significantly shorter procedural (median 16 min versus 26-40, P <0.05), OR times (median 36 min versus 46-70, P <0.05), and facility times (median 235 min versus 299-319, P <0.05) except for the interventional radiology facility time (median 187 versus 235, P <0.05). The range of OR time savings with the prospective versus comparison groups was 10-34 min, representing 22%-49% reductions in OR time (P <0.05). Complication rates were not significantly different (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Through a programmatic change emphasizing efficiency and patient-centered outcomes, procedural/OR/facility time can be reduced greatly without changing complication rates. These data provide compelling evidence that common and ostensibly simple operative procedures can be substantially improved upon with thoughtful, data-driven systems-level enhancements.

Cost of achieving equivalent outcomes in sicker patients after liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterize variability in cost after straightforward orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). METHODS: Using the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified patients who underwent OLT between 2011 and 2014. Patients meeting criteria for straightforward OLT, defined as length of stay < 14 days with discharge to home, were selected (n = 5763) and grouped into tertiles (low, medium, high) according to cost of perioperative stay. RESULTS: Patients undergoing straightforward OLT were of similar demographics regardless of cost. High cost patients were more likely to require preoperative hemodialysis, had higher severity of illness, and higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) (p < 0.01). High cost patients required greater utilization of resources including lab tests, blood transfusions, and opioids (p < 0.01). Despite having higher burden of disease and requiring increased resource utilization, high cost OLT patients with a straightforward perioperative course were shown to have identical 2-year graft and overall survival compared to lower cost patients (p = 0.82 and p = 0.63), respectively. CONCLUSION: Providing adequate perioperative care for OLT patients with higher severity of illness and disease burden requires increased cost and resource utilization; however, doing so provides these patients with long term survival equivalent to more routine patients.

Surgeon, not technique, defines outcomes after central venous port insertion.

BACKGROUND: Although central venous access for port placement is common and relatively safe, complications and poor resource utilization occur. We hypothesized that despite the simplicity of port placement, surgeon and/or resident performance-rather than technique-is associated with clinical outcomes and operating room efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 1200 patients who underwent port placement between 2012 and 2015 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Insertion route (subclavian, internal jugular, cephalic cutdown), individual surgeon (A-G), surgeon volume, body mass index, patient age, and resident presence were evaluated to determine their association with operating room time, complications, and need for alternate insertion route. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, operating room times were significantly different among individual surgeons, with surgeons E and F having the longest operating room times (50 and 63 versus 31-40 min; P < 0.01) and switching to an alternate method more frequently (13.5% and 21.3%, versus 0%-10.3%, P < 0.01). On multivariate analyses, operating time was increased with elevated body mass index, resident presence, and switching to an alternate method. Individual surgeons had varied effects on operating time with two surgeons found to be the predominant drivers (OR 19 and 27; P < 0.01). With residents excluded, these two surgeons continued to increase operating times (OR 15 and 29; P < 0.01) and procedural complications (OR 3.2 and 5.9; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although port placement is ostensibly simple, individual surgeon performance is the primary driver of patient outcome and operative efficiency. In an era requiring optimized resource utilization and outcomes, these data demonstrate potential for enhanced programmatic organization and case distribution.

Case mix-adjusted cost of colectomy at low-, middle-, and high-volume academic centers.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to regionalize surgery based on thresholds in procedure volume may have consequences on the cost of health care delivery. This study aims to delineate the relationship between hospital volume, case mix, and variability in the cost of operative intervention using colectomy as the model. METHODS: All patients undergoing colectomy (n = 90,583) at 183 academic hospitals from 2009-2012 in The University HealthSystems Consortium Database were studied. Patient and procedure details were used to generate a case mix-adjusted predictive model of total direct costs. Observed to expected costs for each center were evaluated between centers based on overall procedure volume. RESULTS: Patient and procedure characteristics were significantly different between volume tertiles. Observed costs at high-volume centers were less than at middle- and low-volume centers. According to our predictive model, high-volume centers cared for a less expensive case mix than middle- and low-volume centers ($12,786 vs $13,236 and $14,497, P < .01). Our predictive model accounted for 44% of the variation in costs. Overall efficiency (standardized observed to expected costs) was greatest at high-volume centers compared to middle- and low-volume tertiles (z score -0.16 vs 0.02 and -0.07, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Hospital costs and cost efficiency after an elective colectomy varies significantly between centers and may be attributed partially to the patient differences at those centers. These data demonstrate that a significant proportion of the cost variation is due to a distinct case mix at low-volume centers, which may lead to perceived poor performance at these centers.

Surgeon Characteristics Supersede Hospital Characteristics in Mortality After Urgent Colectomy.

BACKGROUND: Urgent colectomy is a common procedure with a high mortality rate that is performed by a variety of surgeons and hospitals. We investigated patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics that predicted mortality after urgent colectomy. METHODS: The University HealthSystem Consortium was queried for adults undergoing urgent or emergent colectomy between 2009 and 2013 (n = 50,707). Hospitals were grouped into quartiles according to risk-adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios and compared using the 2013 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine patient and provider characteristics associated with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The overall mortality rate after urgent colectomy was 9 %. Mortality rates were higher for patients with extreme severity of illness (27.6 %), lowest socioeconomic status (10.6 %), weekend admissions (10.7 %), and open (10.5 %) and total (15.8 %) colectomies. Hospitals with the lowest O/E ratios were smaller and had lower volume and less teaching intensity, but there were no significant trends with regard to financial (expenses, payroll, capital expenditures per bed) or personnel characteristics (physicians, nurses, technicians per bed). On multivariate analysis, mortality was associated with patient age (10 years: OR 1.31, p < 0.01), severity of illness (extreme: OR 34.68, p < 0.01), insurance status (Medicaid: OR 1.24, p < 0.01; uninsured: OR 1.40, p < 0.01), and weekend admission (OR 1.09, p = 0.04). Surgeon volume was associated with reduced mortality (per 10 cases: OR 0.99, p < 0.01), but hospital volume was not (per case: OR 1.00, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality is common after urgent colectomy and is associated with patient characteristics. Surgeon volume and practice patterns predicted differences in mortality, whereas hospital factors did not. These data suggest that policies focusing solely on hospital volume ignore other more important predictors of patient outcomes.

Variability in postoperative resource utilization after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Who is responsible.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to quantify and predict variability that exists in resource utilization after pancreaticoduodenectomy and determine how such variability impacts postoperative outcomes. METHODS: The University HealthSystems Consortium database was queried for all pancreaticoduodenectomies performed between 2011-2013 (n = 9,737). A composite resource utilization score was created using z-scores of 8 clinically significant postoperative care delivery variables including number of laboratory tests, imaging tests, computed tomographic scans, days on antibiotics, anticoagulation, antiemetics, promotility agents, and total number of blood products transfused per patient. Logistic, Poisson, and gamma regression models were used to determine predictors of increased variability in care between patients. RESULTS: Having a high (versus low) resource utilization score after pancreaticoduodenectomy correlated with increased duration of stay; (odds ratio 2.28), cost (odds ratio 1.89), readmission rate (odds ratio 1.46), and mortality (odds ratio 7.54). Patient-specific factors were the strongest predictors and included extreme severity of illness (odds ratio 114), major comorbidities/complications (odds ratio 5.99), and admission prior to procedure (odds ratio 2.72; all P < .01). Surgeon and center volume were not associated with resource utilization. CONCLUSION: Public reporting of patient outcomes and resource utilization, invariably tied to reimbursement in the near future, should consider that much of the postoperative variability after complex pancreatic operation is related to patient-specific risk factors.

Cost-effectiveness of cervical spine clearance interventions with litigation and long-term-care implications in obtunded adult patients following blunt injury.

BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma conditionally recommend cervical collar removal after a negative cervical computed tomography in obtunded adult blunt trauma patients. Although the rates of missed injury are extremely low, the impact of chronic care costs and litigation upon decision making remains unclear. We hypothesize that the cost-effectiveness of strategies that include additional imaging may contradict current guidelines. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for a base-case 40-year-old, obtunded man with a negative computed tomography. Strategies compared included adjunct imaging with cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), collar maintenance for 6 weeks, or removal. Data on the probability for long-term collar complications, spine injury, imaging costs, complications associated with MRI, acute and chronic care, and litigation were obtained from published and Medicare data. Outcomes were expressed as 2014 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: Collar removal was more effective and less costly than collar use or MRI (19.99 vs. 19.35 vs. 18.70 quality-adjusted life-years; $675,359 vs. $685,546 vs. $685,848) in the base-case analysis. When the probability of missed cervical injury was greater than 0.04 adjunct imaging with MRI dominated, however, collar removal remained cost-effective until the probability of missed injury exceeded 0.113 at which point collar removal exceeded the $50,000 threshold. Collar removal remained the most cost-effective approach until the probability of complications from collar use was reduced to less than 0.009, at which point collar maintenance became the most cost-effective strategy. Early collar removal dominates all strategies until the risk of complications from MRI positioning is reduced to 0.03 and remained cost-effective even when the probability of complication was reduced to 0. CONCLUSION: Early collar removal in obtunded adult blunt trauma patients appears to be the most effective and least costly strategy for cervical clearance based on the current literature available. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic evaluation, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Use of video-based education and tele-health home monitoring after liver transplantation: Results of a novel pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In this observational study, we analyzed the feasibility and early results of a perioperative, video-based educational program and tele-health home monitoring model on postoperative care management and readmissions for patients undergoing liver transplantation. METHODS: Twenty consecutive liver transplantation recipients were provided with tele-health home monitoring and an educational video program during the perioperative period. Vital statistics were tracked and monitored daily with emphasis placed on readings outside of the normal range (threshold violations). Additionally, responses to effectiveness questionnaires were collected retrospectively for analysis. RESULTS: In the study, 19 of the 20 patients responded to the effectiveness questionnaire, with 95% reporting having watched all 10 videos, 68% watching some more than once, and 100% finding them effective in improving their preparedness for understanding their postoperative care. Among these 20 patients, there was an observed 19% threshold violation rate for systolic blood pressure, 6% threshold violation rate for mean blood glucose concentrations, and 8% threshold violation rate for mean weights. This subset of patients had a 90-day readmission rate of 30%. CONCLUSION: This observational study demonstrates that tele-health home monitoring and video-based educational programs are feasible in liver transplantation recipients and seem to be effective in enhancing the monitoring of vital statistics postoperatively. These data suggest that smart technology is effective in creating a greater awareness and understanding of how to manage postoperative care after liver transplantation.

The impact of morbid obesity on resource utilization after renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of renal transplant recipients have a body mass index ≥40. While previous studies have shown that patient and graft survival are significantly decreased in renal transplant recipients with body mass indexes ≥40, less is known about perioperative outcomes and resource utilization in morbidly obese patients. We aimed to analyze the effects of morbid obesity on these parameters in renal transplant. METHODS: Using a linkage between the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients and the databases of the University HealthSystem Consortium, we identified 29,728 adult renal transplant recipients and divided them into 2 cohorts based on body mass index (<40 vs ≥40 kg/m2). The body mass index ≥40 group comprised 2.5% (n = 747) of renal transplant recipients studied. RESULTS: Body mass index ≥40 recipients incurred greater direct costs ($84,075 vs $79,580, P < .01), index admission costs ($91,169 vs $86,141, P < .01), readmission costs ($5,306 vs $4,596, P = .01), and combined costs ($99,590 vs $93,939, P < .001). Thirty-day readmission rates were also greater among body mass index ≥40 recipients (33.92% vs 26.9%, P < .01). Morbid obesity was not predictive of stay (odds ratio 1.01, P = .75). CONCLUSION: Morbidly obese renal transplant recipients incur greater costs and readmission rates compared with nonobese patients. Recognition of increased resource utilization should be accompanied by appropriate, risk-adjustment reimbursement.

Hospital resources are associated with value-based surgical performance.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that inferior outcomes at safety-net hospitals are largely dependent on hospital factors. We hypothesized that hospitals providing "high value" care (low cost and better outcomes) would have advantages in human and financial resources. METHODS: The University HealthSystems Consortium Clinical Database and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey were used to examine hospitals performing eight complex surgical procedures from 2009 to 2013. Hospitals in the lowest quartiles of both mortality rate and cost were characterized as high value (n = 45), whereas those in the highest quartiles of both cost and mortality were low value (n = 45). Hospital size, staffing, and financial characteristics were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: On average, high-value hospitals had lower proportions of Medicaid patient days (17% versus 30%; P < 0.01), higher proportions of outpatient surgery (63% versus 53%; P < 0.01), and spent more on capital expenditures per bed ($155,710 versus $62,434; P < 0.05). Also, high-value hospitals employed more hospitalists (0.08 versus 0.04 per bed; P < 0.01), had more privileged physicians (2.04 versus 1.25 per bed; P < 0.01), and had more full-time equivalent personnel (8.48 versus 6.79 per bed; all P < 0.05). As a result, these hospitals appeared to be more efficient; high-value hospitals had more total admissions per bed (46 versus 38; P < 0.01), fewer days per admission (5.20 versus 5.77; P < 0.01), and more inpatient surgeries per bed (15.7 versus 12.6; all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that invest in more human resources and demonstrate increased throughput perform complex surgery at higher "value" (i.e., lower costs and mortality). Value-based purchasing initiatives that link hospital reimbursement to unadjusted surgical outcomes may exacerbate, rather than improve, disparities in surgical care that currently exist.

Addressing the High Costs of Pancreaticoduodenectomy at Safety-Net Hospitals.

Importance: Safety-net hospitals care for vulnerable patients, providing complex surgery at increased costs. These hospitals are at risk due to changing health care reimbursement policies and demand for better value in surgical care. Objective: To model different techniques for reducing the cost of complex surgery performed at safety-net hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: Hospitals performing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were queried from the University HealthSystem Consortium database (January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013) and grouped according to safety-net burden. A decision analytic model was constructed and populated with clinical and cost data. Sensitivity analyses were then conducted to determine how changes in the management or redistribution of patients between hospital groups affected cost. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall cost per patient after PD. Results: During the 5 years of the study, 15 090 patients underwent PD. Among safety-net hospitals, low-burden hospitals (LBHs), medium-burden hospitals (MBHs), and high-burden hospitals (HBHs) treated 4220 (28.0%), 9505 (63.0%), and 1365 (9.0%) patients, respectively. High-burden hospitals had higher rates of complications or comorbidities and more patients with increased severity of illness. Perioperative mortality was twice as high at HBHs (3.7%) than at LBHs (1.6%) and MBHs (1.7%) (P < .001). In the base case, when all clinical and cost data were considered, PD at HBHs cost $35 303 per patient, 30.1% and 36.2% higher than at MBHs ($27 130) and LBHs ($25 916), respectively. Reducing perioperative complications or comorbidities by 50% resulted in a cost reduction of up to $4607 for HBH patients, while reducing mortality rates had a negligible effect. However, redistribution of HBH patients to LBHs and MBHs resulted in significantly more cost savings of $9155 per HBH patient, or $699 per patient overall. Conclusions and Relevance: Safety-net hospitals performing PD have inferior outcomes and higher costs, and improving perioperative outcomes may have a nominal effect on reducing these costs. Redirecting patients away from safety-net hospitals for complex surgery may represent the best option for reducing costs, but the implementation of such a policy will undoubtedly meet significant challenges.

Risk of Reoperation Within 90 Days of Liver Transplantation: A Necessary Evil?

BACKGROUND: The rate and consequences of reoperation after liver transplantation (LT) are unknown in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Adult patients (n = 10,295; 45% of all LT) undergoing LT from 2009 through 2012 were examined using a linkage of the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases providing recipient, donor, center, hospitalization, and survival details. Median follow-up was 2 years. Reoperations were identified within 90 days after LT. RESULTS: Overall 90-day reoperation rate after LT was 29.3%. Risk factors for 90-day reoperation included recipients with a history of hemodialysis, severely ill functional status, government insurance, increasing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score, and increasing donor risk index. Reoperation within 90 days was found to be an independent predictor of adjusted 1-year mortality (odds ratio = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5-2.1), as was government-provided insurance and increasing donor risk index. Additionally, patients undergoing delayed reoperative intervention (after 30 days) were found to have increased risk of 1-year mortality compared with those undergoing early reoperative intervention (odds ratio = 1.96; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first national study reporting that nearly one-third of transplant recipients undergo reoperation within 90 days of LT. Although necessary at times, reoperation is associated with increased risk of death at 1 year; however, it appears that the timing of these interventions can be critical, due to the type of intervention required. Early reoperative intervention does not appear to influence long-term outcomes, and delayed intervention (after 30 days) is strongly associated with decreased survival.

Cost-Effectiveness in Hepatic Lobectomy: the Effect of Case Volume on Mortality, Readmission, and Cost of Care.

OBJECTIVE(S): Higher-volume centers demonstrate better perioperative outcomes for complex surgical interventions, though resource utilization implications of this hospital-level variation are unclear. We hypothesized that for hepatic lobectomy, higher operative volume correlates with better outcomes and lower costs. METHODS: From 2009 to 2011, 4163 patients undergoing hepatic lobectomy were identified from the University HealthSystems Consortium database. Univariate, multivariate logistic regression, and decision analytic models were constructed to identify differences in hospital utilization and cost. Cost included both index and readmission hospitalizations, when applicable. RESULTS: The annual number of hepatic lobectomies performed by the institutions within the study ranged from 1 to 86. The median age of the 4163 patients was 58 years with a roughly equal gender split (M/F 49 %:51 %) and a racial breakdown which reflected that of the general US population. For all patients, the overall perioperative mortality rate was 2.3 % and the 30-day readmission rate was 13.4 %. Hospitals performing >30 hepatic lobectomies per year had significantly lower mortality and readmission rates than those hospitals performing ≤15 lobectomies annually (both p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, higher severity of illness (odd ratio (OR) 2.13, 95 % confidence interval (CI) [1.48-3.07], p < 0.001), discharge to rehab (OR 1.84, [1.28-2.64], p < 0.001), home with home health care (OR 1.38, [1.08-1.76], p = 0.01), and surgery at a low-volume hospital (OR 1.49, [1.18-1.88], p < 0.001) were significant predictors of readmission. Conversely, surgical intervention at high-volume centers was associated with decreased risk of readmission (OR 0.67, [0.53-0.85], p < 0.001). When both index and readmission costs were considered, per-patient cost at low-volume centers was 21.9 % higher than at high-volume centers ($19,669 vs. $16,137). Sensitivity analyses adjusting for perioperative mortality and readmission at all centers did not significantly change the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These data, for the first time, demonstrate that hospital volume in hepatic lobectomy is an important, modifiable risk factor for readmission and cost. To optimize resource utilization, patients undergoing complex hepatic surgery should be directed to higher-volume surgical institutions.

Hospital Utilization of Nationally Shared Liver Allografts from 2007 to 2012.

BACKGROUND: Due to the current geographic disparities in liver allocation a policy, which endorses broader sharing of allografts, has been proposed. We performed a retrospective cohort study to identify how nationally shared allografts, under the current policy, affect perioperative outcomes and resource utilization following liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: Univariate and multivariate analysis identified how patient characteristics and hospital outcomes were associated with national sharing. This analysis was based on 12,282 deceased donor liver transplants performed between 2007 and 2012 using the scientific registry of transplant recipients linked to the University HealthSystem Consortium database. RESULTS: Compared to locally distributed livers, nationally shared livers are more likely to have a donor risk index >1.8 (64.3 vs. 11.6 %), to be classified as expanded criteria donors (44.6 vs. 24.8 %), and transplanted into healthier recipients. Nationally shared LTs were more likely to be performed at high-volume centers (49.1 vs. 30.6 %), resulted in longer length of stay (11 vs. 9 days), and had higher in-hospital mortality (6.6 vs. 3.3 %). Additionally, nationally shared allografts were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality (OR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.13-2.39) and length of stay (OR 1.12, 95 % CI 1.02-1.21). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that increased national sharing of livers may result in inferior patient outcomes and increased resource utilization.

Gall Bladder Cancer.

Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is the most common biliary epithelial malignancy, with an estimated 10,910 new cases and 3700 deaths per year (Siegel et al. in CA Cancer J Clin 65:5­29, 2015 [1]). This disease's insidious nature and typically late presentation place it among the most lethal of invasive neoplasms. Gallbladder cancer spreads early by lymphatic or hematogenous metastasis and by direct invasion into the liver. While surgery may well be curative at early stages, both surgical and nonsurgical treatments remain largely unsuccessful in patients with more advanced disease.

Adjuvant Therapy for Gallbladder Cancer: an Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with resected gallbladder cancer (GBC) is unclear. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base was used to identify patients with resected GBC (pathologic stage 1-3) from 1998 to 2006 (n = 6690). We compared three groups: surgery only (S, 78.6 %), surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC, 6.2 %), and surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy (ACR, 15.1 %). Univariate and Cox regression analyses were used to determine factors influencing overall survival and the use of adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: ACR was associated with improved survival for all patients (HR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.66-0.90), especially node-positive patients (HR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.53-0.78); AC was not associated with changes in survival. Patients were less likely to have their lymph nodes examined if they had any comorbidities, lower income, or were treated at community cancer centers (all p < 0.05). Among patients with unknown lymph node status, those with T2 or T3 disease saw improved survival with ACR (T2: HR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.63-0.99; T3: HR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.30-0.62), while AC did not affect survival. CONCLUSION: ACR is associated with improved survival for patients with node-positive GBC, as well as those with T2 or T3 GBC with unknown lymph node status.