Researchers report that the controversial operation, wherein the scarred portion of a damaged heart is folded in on itself, so that it can beat more effectively, is of little benefit to most patients.

Known as ventricular reconstruction, the operation is designed to help people with heart failure, a condition affecting about 5-million Americans, which often occurs after a heart attack damages the tissue. In order to compensate for the damage, the heart generally gets larger, but also beginning to pump less efficiently.

Ventricular reconstruction involves making an incision in the damaged part of the left ventricle. After identifying the damaged part, the surgeons basically sew the healthy part together and after tightening the sutures, they place a patch over the damaged tissue, leaving the damaged tissue outside the ventricle.

In the trial called STICH, doctors compared what happened to 1,000 volunteers, who had all undergone heart bypass operations, with half also having got ventricular reconstruction done. However, they told a meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Orlando that ventricular reconstruction was not useful in reducing the death rate or the risk of hospitalization, neither did it improve the quality of life after four years.

The researchers believe that by not getting the reconstruction done, $14,595 in hospital costs per patient will be saved, with patients spending one half hour less in the operating room.

The findings, based on work at 96 medical centres in 23 countries have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also.