本文报道介绍作者在1965年7月至1969年1月所作的76例永久性经静脉途径导管起搏的经验,并对比固定频率起搏器和按需起搏器的效果。方法:男40例,女36例,44～87岁,平均71岁。起搏前48例有晕厥发作,43例有心力衰竭,19例有心绞痛。42例起搏前的心律为完全性房室传导阻滞,15例为不同程度的传导阻滞直至包括完全性传导阻滞,1例为心动过速性心律失常,其余则为各种心室率缓慢的心律失常。 44例最初系采用固定频率起搏器,22例最初就采用按需起搏器;固定频率起搏器失效或出现竞争心律时,均替换以按需起搏器。起搏器的安置是在利多卡因局部麻醉下进行。起搏导管由颈外静脉插入,在透视下插入右心室,导管尖嵌入肌小梁之间,如起 This article reports on the experience of 76 patients who underwent transvenous transvenous catheterization from July 1965 to January 1969 and compared the effects of fixed frequency pacemakers and on demand pacemakers. Methods: 40 males and 36 females, 44 to 87 years old, with an average of 71 years old. There were 48 cases of syncope before pacing, 43 cases of heart failure, and 19 cases of angina pectoris. Forty-two pre-pacing cardiac rhythms were complete atrioventricular block, 15 with varying degrees of conduction block until complete conduction block, one with tachyarrhythmia and the rest with ventricular rate Slow arrhythmia. Forty-four patients were initially treated with a fixed-frequency pacemaker and 22 with an on-demand pacemaker initially. Fixed-frequency pacemakers were replaced with an on-demand pacemaker in the event of failure or competing cardioversion. Pacemaker placement was performed under local lidocaine anesthesia. Pacing catheter inserted by the jugular vein, inserted into the right ventricle under fluoroscopy, catheter tip embedded in the trabecular between, as