In the Online First article published on March 2, 2018, there were several errors in the article’s abstract. The first sentence of the Methods paragraph should read: “Children (N = 300; 0 to 8 yr) with at least two clinically relevant risk factors for perioperative respiratory adverse events and deemed suitable for either technique of anesthesia induction were recruited and randomized to either intravenous propofol or inhalational sevoflurane.”

The Results paragraph should read: “Children receiving intravenous propofol were significantly less likely to experience perioperative respiratory adverse events compared with those who received inhalational sevoflurane after adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status and weight (perioperative respiratory adverse event: 39/149 [26%] vs. 64/149 [43%], relative risk [RR]: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2 to 2.3, P = 0.002, respiratory adverse events at induction: 16/149 [11%] vs. 47/149 [32%], RR: 3.06, 95% CI: 1.8 to 5. 2, P < 0.001).”

The authors regret these errors. The online version and PDF of the article have been corrected.

Reference

Ramgolam
A
,
Hall
GL
,
Zhang
G
,
Hegarty
M
,
von Ungern-Sternberg
BS
:
Inhalational versus intravenous induction of anesthesia in children with a high risk of perioperative respiratory adverse events: A randomized controlled trial.
Anesthesiology
2018
;
128
:
1065
74