In the article by Mark Reinhard et al, “Renal Artery Stenting in Consecutive High‐Risk Patients With Atherosclerotic Renovascular Disease: A Prospective 2‐Center Cohort Study,” which published online March 24, 2022 (J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11:e024421. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024421) and was included in the April 5, 2022 issue of the journal, a correction was needed.
Due to an error in production during the proof stage, some errors were introduced into the PDF version of the article. The full text and ePub versions of the article were correct. In the PDF, corrections have been made as follows:
In Table 3:
“No. of patients*=*If a patient started permanent renal‐replacement therapy during follow‐up, the estimated GFR was set to 10 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and the patient was excluded from further analyses regarding BP and antihypertensive treatment” has been corrected to read “*If a patient started permanent renal‐replacement therapy during follow‐up, the estimated GFR was set to 10 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and the patient was excluded from further analyses regarding BP and antihypertensive treatment.”
“Baseline values and changes from baseline (95% CI)†=†Using a paired t‐test to calculate the changes in the same patients over time led to only minor changes in the results and did not change the conclusions” has been corrected to read “†Using a paired t test to calculate the changes in the same patients over time led to only minor changes in the results and did not change the conclusions.”
“Estimated GFR, ‡mL/min per 1.73 m2 ‡=‡The estimated GFR was calculated with the use of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula” has been corrected to read “‡The estimated GFR was calculated with the use of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula.”
“Urine albumin‐creatinine ratio§=§A total of 584 urine albumin‐creatinine ratios were available for the analysis and, of these, 21 (18 before baseline and 3 after baseline) were assigned a value of 29 mg/g because the ratio was not measured but the patient had a negative urine dipstick at the given time point” has been corrected to read “§A total of 584 urine albumin‐creatinine ratios were available for the analysis and, of these, 21 (18 before baseline and 3 after baseline) were assigned a value of 29 mg/g because the ratio was not measured but the patient had a negative urine dipstick at the given time point.”
Within the table, in the heading row, “Baseline values and changes from baseline (95% CI)*” has been changed to Baseline values and changes from baseline (95% CI)†”
In the first column, under Estimated GFR, full cohort, “Estimated GFR, †mL/min per 1.73 m2” has been changed to “Estimated GFR, ‡mL/min per 1.73 m2”
In the first column, under Estimated GFR, subgroup with rapid decline in estimated GFR at baseline, “Estimated GFR, †mL/min per 1.73 m2” has been changed to “Estimated GFR, ‡mL/min per 1.73 m2”
In the first column, “Urine albumin‐creatinine ratio‡” to “Urine albumin‐creatinine ratio§”
In Table 4:
“Potassium‐sparing agents*=*Spironolactone, eplerenone, or amiloride” has been corrected to read “*Spironolactone, eplerenone, or amiloride.”
“Centrally acting agents†=†Methyldopa or moxonidine” has been corrected to read “†Methyldopa or moxonidine”
“Direct vasodilators‡=‡Hydralazine or minoxidil” has been corrected to read “‡Hydralazine or minoxidil.”
Some of the corresponding footnote symbols within the table have also been corrected. Within the first column of Table 4, “Potassium‐sparing agents§” now reads “Potassium‐sparing agents*” and “Direct vasodilators†” now reads “Direct vasodilators‡”
A correction was also made in the Discussion section on page 12, in the second column: “and Baseline predictors for favorable response in kidney function after successful revascularization included severity of clinical presentation at baseline (increasing systolic BP, rapidly declining kidney function, and recurrent heart failure/sudden pulmonary edema) and angiographic stenosis ≥90%.” Has been corrected to read “Baseline predictors for favorable response in kidney function after successful revascularization included severity of clinical presentation at baseline (increasing systolic BP, rapidly declining kidney function, and recurrent heart failure/sudden pulmonary edema) and angiographic stenosis ≥90%.”
The publisher regrets the errors.
The online version of the article has been updated and is available here: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.121.024421.