{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016888888888888887, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.865853658536586, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Surgical revision after percutaneous mitral valve repair by edge‐to‐edge device in high‐risk patients

Patients scheduled for surgery after unsuccessful MitraClip® intervention present increasingly with multiple comorbidities, and they are often referred to the heart team to suggest the most appropriate intervention. The publication of successful results of initial patient cohorts treated with the MitraClip device has resulted in recruitment of more seriously ill patients, who otherwise would have been denied catheter‐based/surgical treatment. There has been increasingly reports on conventional surgery after failed mitral valve repair with the MitraClip device. However, data on such procedures remain scarce and mostly focused on individual case studies. The inevitable increase in use of MitraClip, however, will raise the number of patients in need of surgery post MitraClip, making it imperative for surgeons to understand challenges and outcome data related with surgery in this patient cohort. We present our long‐term institutional experience with surgery after MitraClip intervention in highest risk patients.