Abstract Funding Acknowledgements None. Background The choice of a sedative agent for patients undergoing invasive ventilation has been widely studied. However, data regarding the optimal sedation strategy after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) when the patients are suffering from post-OHCA shock is sparse. Aim To explore whether the use of midazolam in patients admitted for OHCA that are additionally haemodynamically unstable increases in-hospital mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, cerebral performance status (CPC) at discharge, and days of intubation or admission, when used selectively during the acute phase of deteriorating post-OHCA shock patients. Methods We report a prospective, observational, single-centre cohort that included all-comers admitted due to OHCA of presumed cardiac cause between May-2019 and July-2023, that remained comatose at admission. Midazolam was only administrated as the mean sedation agent when the patient was in a hemodynamically deteriorating situation (SCAI D-E). Baseline characteristics, OHCA features, blood samples measurements, in-hospital treatments and neurological condition at discharge were registered. Primary outcome was in-hospital death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included CPC at discharge (1-2 VS 3-5), CV mortality, days of admission, days of intubation, need of tracheostomy, myopathy, enolase at 48h and heart transplant during admission. Patients were stratified according to whether they had received midazolam as mean sedation agent at some stage of admission or not. Results 103 patients of the 109 admitted were included (6 refused consent), 45 of them (43%) received midazolam at some stage of admission. No differences in baseline characteristics were found. Mean age was 60.6 years, 79.6% were male, most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (53.4%) and dyslipidaemia (46.6%), and 20,4% had had a previous myocardial infarction. OHCA characteristics, shock parameters and administered treatments did not significantly differ between the two groups (Table 1). In-hospital mortality was numerically higher in the midazolam group but did not reach statistical significance (56% vs. 38%, p=0.075) (Figure 1). There were no differences neither in secondary outcomes (CV mortality 4% vs. 5%, p=0.865; CPC 1-2 70% vs. 83%, p=0.244; days of intubation 6 vs. 4, p=0.203; tracheostomy 18% vs. 10%, p=0.275; days of admission 14 vs. 15, p=0.851; 48h enolase 38 vs. 29, p=0.919; heart transplant during admission 0% vs. 1,7%, p=0.376; myopathy 30% vs. 21% p=0.282). Conclusion In patients admitted due to OHCA, even though the administration of midazolam is given in unstable patients, it is not related to a higher in-hospital mortality nor poorer outcomes.Table 1.OHCA and shock characteristicsFigure 1.Cumulative Survival