OBJECTIVETo investigate a possibility to improve the security of pulse-activating injection by comparing the difference of pseudoanaphylactoid reactions (PR) induced by pulse-activating injection before and after improving technology.

METHODThe analysis of vascular permeability of the mice's ears: ICR mouse were divided into different test groups, and intravenously injected with solutions of different concentration of pulse-activating injection before and after improving technology, positive control Compound 48/80 and 5% glucose injection. All test substances were mixed with 0. 4% Evans blue. The reaction and vascular permeability of the ears were observed and measured 30 min after injection. The vascular permeability of the rat's skin: the rats were intravenous injected with 0. 6% Evans blue normal saline solution first, 10 minutes later, the same test substances were intradermal injected into the back of rats, there are 16 injected spots in the back of rat. The rats were sacrificed and the diameter of locus ceruleus and the content of Evans blue leaked out were measured 20 min after injection.

RESULTPulse-activating injection before improving technology with dose of 16.7 mL x kg(-1) ( in 1.67 times the clinical dose ) caused obvious vascular hyperpermeability in ICR mice. In the group of pulse-activating injection before improving technology with dose of 10 mL x kg(-1) (in clinic equivalent dose), no obvious vascular hyperpermeability in the ears were observed. The degrees of vascular hyperpermeability in the group of pulse-activating injection after improving technology with dose of 16.7 mL x kg(-1) were more lessen than the same dose of injection before improving technology. Pulse-activating injection before improving technology caused obvious exudation, oedema locus ceruleus in the injection site of rat's back, and it showed a certain dose-effect relation. Pulse-activating injection after improving technology caused locus ceruleus in the injection site too, but the diameters of the locus ceruleus were shorter than the diameters in the group of pulse-activating injection before improving technology, and the contents of leaked out Evans blue were fewer. All of these showed that PR of skin induced by pulse-activating injection after improving technology is alleviated.

CONCLUSIONPulse-activating injection before improving technology cause obvious vascular hyperpermeability, but the same dose of pulse-activating injection after improving technology can't cause obvious vascular hyperpermeability. The result indicated that the pulse-activating injection before improving technology can cause PR, improving technology can lessen the degree of PR induced by the injection.