Table 2.

Results of cost-effectiveness analysis

Strategy	No of ICU admissions	Total cost/100 admissions (€)	Cost of infections/100 admissions (€)	Cost of intervention/100 admissions (€)	Infections due to ESBL-PE/100 admissions	Incremental cost/100 admissions (ΔC) (€)	Incremental effect (ΔE) (infections avoided/100 admissions)	ICER (ΔC/ΔE) (€/infection avoided)
2: HH 80%/80%	573	80 556	54 916	25 639	2.9	–	–	–
7: HH 80%/80%+ATB reduction	581	88 498	51 840	36 657	2.7	7 942*	0.1619*	49 055*
10: Screening+cohorting+ATB reduction	584	94 313	50 058	44 255	2.6	5 815†	0.0938†	61 994†
3: HH 55%/80%	548	84 751	66 773	17 978	3.5			Dominated‡
6: Screening+cohorting	575	86 713	53 278	33 435	2.8			Dominated§
8: HH 55%/80%+ATB reduction	565	88 621	59 445	29 176	3.1			Dominated‡
9: Screening+contact precautions+ATB reduction	546	94 309	67 560	26 749	3.6			Dominated‡
5: Screening+contact precautions	519	96 716	81 582	15 134	4.3			Dominated‡
4: ATB reduction	528	100 128	77 641	22 486	4.1			Dominated‡
1: Base case	498	105 344	94 792	10 552	5.0			Dominated‡

*Relative to strategy 2.

†Relative to strategy 7.

‡Dominated: a strategy is dominated when it has higher cost and lower health benefit than another strategy.

§Dominated by extended dominance: strategy is dominated by extended dominance if the linear combination of other strategies produces greater benefit at lower cost.

ATB, antibiotic; ESBL-PE, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae; HH, hand hygiene; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; ICU, intensive care unit.