In the article by Reynolds et al, “Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity” which published online on September 9, 2021 and appeared in the September 28, 2021, issue of Circulation (Circulation. 2021;144:1024–1038. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.049755), corrections are needed.

The analysis population for CAD and outcomes is correct as stated, at 2475. However, the authors described the 2475 incompletely. A correction is being issued to clarify the exclusions leading to this analysis population, and to clarify that percentages in tables were calculated among individuals with nonmissing data.

As indicated in Supplemental Figure I, modified Duke Prognostic Index on coronary computed tomography was categorized in 2518 participants. Forty-three of these participants were excluded from analysis of coronary artery disease (CAD) and outcomes because the subgroups of left main (n=40) and no obstructive CAD (n=3) were small.

As such, the following corrections are being made:

The footnotes to Table 1 have been revised. The sentence “Duke categories 1 and 2 (nonobstructive coronary artery disease or normal arteries) and 7 (left main stenosis ≥50%) were excluded from analysis because these findings were not consistent with eligibility for randomization after coronary computed tomographic angiography” has been revised to “Duke categories 1 and 2 (nonobstructive coronary artery disease or normal arteries) and 7 (left main stenosis ≥50%) were excluded from analysis because these subgroups were small”. In addition, the n excluded from Duke categories 1, 2, and 7 has been added to the footnote.

Supplemental Figure I has been revised and a footnote added to clarify how the study flow resulted in the analysis population of 2475.

Text has been added to the study methods explaining that because the subgroups with no obstructive CAD (Duke categories 1 and 2) and left main stenosis ≥ 50% (Duke category 7) were small, these 43 patients were excluded from the analysis population. Specifically, in the final paragraph of the Test Performance and Interpretation section of the Methods, the sentences “We restricted this analysis to participants with an interpretable stress test and CCTA interpretable for Duke score (n=2518). We excluded 43 participants in Duke score categories 1, 2 or 7 because these subgroups were small.” have been added. The sentence “Thus 48% of participants had CCTA interpretable for modified Duke prognostic index.” has been revised to “Thus 2475 participants (48%) were included in analysis of modified Duke Prognostic Index and outcomes.”

In the first paragraph of the Results section, the sentence "Of those, CCTA-defined extent and stenosis severity of CAD on the basis of the modified Duke Prognostic Index (hereafter referred to as severity of CAD) were available for analysis in 2475 (48%; Figure I in the Data Supplement)." has been revised to "Of those, CCTA-defined extent and stenosis severity of CAD were analyzed in relation to outcomes in 2475 participants, using the modified Duke Prognostic Index (hereafter referred to as severity of CAD) (48%; Figure I in the Data Supplement)."

The following footnote has been added to Supplemental Tables I-V: “Percentages are calculated among participants with non-missing data for each summary variable.”

This correction has been made to the current version of the article and its accompanying Supplemental Material, which is available at https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.049755.

在 Reynolds 等人的文章中，“基于冠状动脉疾病和缺血严重程度的 ISCHEMIA 试验的结果”于 2021 年 9 月 9 日在线发表，并出现在 2021 年 9 月 28 日的《循环》 （Circulation . 2021;144）上： 1024–1038.doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.049755)，需要更正。

如 2475 所述，CAD 和结果的分析人群是正确的。但是，作者对 2475 的描述不完整。正在发布更正以澄清导致该分析人群的排除，并澄清表格中的百分比是在具有非缺失数据的个体中计算的。

如补充图 I 所示，2518 名参与者对冠状动脉计算机断层扫描的改良杜克预后指数进行了分类。其中 43 名参与者被排除在冠状动脉疾病 (CAD) 和结果分析之外，因为左主干 (n=40) 和无阻塞性 CAD (n=3) 的亚组很小。

因此，正在进行以下更正：

对表 1 的脚注进行了修订。句子“Duke 类别 1 和 2（非阻塞性冠状动脉疾病或正常动脉）和 7（左主干狭窄 ≥50%）被排除在分析之外，因为这些发现与冠状动脉 CT 血管造影后的随机分组资格不一致”已被修订“杜克 1 类和 2 类（非阻塞性冠状动脉疾病或正常动脉）和 7 类（左主干狭窄 ≥50%）被排除在分析之外，因为这些亚组很小”。此外，从杜克类别 1、2 和 7 中排除的 n 已添加到脚注中。

补充图 I 已经过修订，并添加了一个脚注，以阐明研究流程如何导致 2475 人的分析人群。

在研究方法中添加了文本，解释说由于没有阻塞性 CAD（Duke 类别 1 和 2）和左主干狭窄 ≥ 50%（Duke 类别 7）的亚组很小，这 43 名患者被排除在分析人群之外。具体来说，在方法的测试性能和解释部分的最后一段中，句子“我们将此分析限制在具有可解释压力测试和 CCTA 可解释杜克分数 (n = 2518) 的参与者。我们排除了杜克评分为 1、2 或 7 类的 43 名参与者，因为这些亚组很小。” 已添加。句子“因此 48% 的参与者有 CCTA 可解释为修改后的杜克预后指数。” 已修改为“因此 2475 名参与者 (48%) 被纳入修改后的杜克预后指数和结果的分析中。”

在结果部分的第一段中，句子“其中，CCTA 定义的 CAD 范围和狭窄严重程度基于修正的 Duke 预后指数（以下称为 CAD 严重程度）可用于 2475 年的分析（48 %；数据补充中的图 I）。” 已修订为“其中，CCTA 定义的 CAD 范围和狭窄严重程度与 2475 名参与者的结果相关，使用改良的杜克预后指数（以下称为 CAD 严重程度）（48%；图 I 在数据补充）。”

补充表 IV 中添加了以下脚注：“百分比是在每个汇总变量的非缺失数据的参与者中计算的。”

此更正已对文章的当前版本及其随附的补充材料进行，可在 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.049755 获得。