Correction: Jansa et al. Hospitalisation Is Prognostic of Survival in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 6189

Error in Figure

Due to problems with Figure 1 and Figure 2 in the original publication [1], we replaced it with an updated version of Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The authors wish to replace Figure 1 with the latest version, which includes left aligning of the text in the boxes in the third row down and an indentation added to the “Died” lines, as requested by the peer reviewers.

Figure 1. Landmark analysis patient disposition for (a) inoperable and (b) operable patients. The number of patients listed as “Died” in each group refers to the status at the data cut-off of 31 December 2018; all patients who did not die by this date were classified as “censored”. Percentages may not total to 100%, as the denominator is number of patients; however, patients may have had more than one hospitalisation. Reasons for hospitalisation are summarised in the final row. HF, heart failure; PE, pulmonary embolism; RF, respiratory failure; VT, venous thromboembolism.

Figure 1. Landmark analysis patient disposition for (a) inoperable and (b) operable patients. The number of patients listed as “Died” in each group refers to the status at the data cut-off of 31 December 2018; all patients who did not die by this date were classified as “censored”. Percentages may not total to 100%, as the denominator is number of patients; however, patients may have had more than one hospitalisation. Reasons for hospitalisation are summarised in the final row. HF, heart failure; PE, pulmonary embolism; RF, respiratory failure; VT, venous thromboembolism.

The authors wish to replace Figure 2 with the correct version:

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier analysis: survival probability at each landmark timepoint (model M1) for (a) inoperable patients and (b) operable patients.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier analysis: survival probability at each landmark timepoint (model M1) for (a) inoperable patients and (b) operable patients.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the academic editor. The original publication has also been updated.