Introduction: Paramedics are often required to manage violent or combative patients. In order to do so safely, chemical sedation may be required. There are a number of pharmacologic agents which may be used. However, there is a paucity of evidence as to the optimal agent. Objective: To provide a descriptive analysis of a single base hospital’s experience with combative patients and to determine the efficacy and any adverse events (AEs) in the prehospital setting, associated with midazolam use in these patients. Methods: A retrospective chart review of ambulance calls from 2 urban centers, from January 2012 to December 2015 was completed. All cases of combative patients were filtered and manually examined. Patients were excluded if they were 17 or younger. A priori data points were abstracted by trained research personnel from the ambulance call record. Results: Of approximately 350,000 calls over the study period, there were 269 patients that were combative. Of these, 186 (69.1%) received midazolam for sedation. Multiple doses were required in 33.3% of patients. Depending on route of administration, the average total dose administered was 6.27 mg (SD 3.98 mg) intramuscular, 10.7 mg (SD 4.00 mg) intranasal and 4.95 mg (SD 3.81 mg) intravenous. Midazolam was documented as effective in treating the combativeness in 133 (71.6%), ineffective in 28 (15.1%), and not documented in 25 (13.4%) calls. AEs post midazolam administration, defined as hypotension, bradypnea, bradycardia, or need for airway intervention, were encountered in 3 (1.61%) calls (respiratory rate of 8, hypotension of 88/59 that responded to intravenous fluid and asymptomatic bradycardia of 59). There was a trend of increasing number of combative patients each year over the study period, with a significant difference in the number of combative calls requiring midazolam administration between 2012 and 2015 (50.0% vs 72.8%, p=0.007). Conclusion: Prehospital use of midazolam for combative patients appears to be safe, with minimal AEs. However, midazolam was ineffective in 15.1% and a third of all patients required multiple doses, prolonging the combative period and compromising paramedic and patient safety. Further research is warranted for this cohort’s emergency department (ED) sedation needs and any associated AEs within 1 hour of ED arrival.

Introduction: Paramedics are required to manage combative patients. In order to do so safely, chemical sedation may be required. Advanced Care Paramedics in our EMS system utilize midazolam for chemical restraint. Our previous research has shown that midazolam appears to have few prehospital adverse events (AEs) associated with its use. However, it required multiple dosages in 33.3% of patients and was deemed ineffective in 15.1% of patients that received it in the prehospital setting. Objective: To determine Emergency Department (ED) AEs associated with the prehospital use of midazolam in combative patients and determine the efficacy of this agent as a chemical restraint during the first hour of the ED stay. Methods: A retrospective chart review of paramedic calls from 2 urban centers, from January 2012 to December 2015 was completed. All cases of combative patients were examined. Patients were excluded if they were 17 or younger. Ambulance call records were linked to the patient’s ED chart. ED charts were reviewed and a priori endpoints were extracted. Results: Of approximately 350,000 calls, there were 269 patients that were combative. Of these, 186 (69.1%) received midazolam in the prehospital setting. During the first hour of their ED stay, 68 (36.5%) required further sedation, while 118 (63.4%) patients did not. Of the 186 patients who received midazolam in the prehospital setting there was one death and one AE in the ED (defined as hypotension, bradypnea, or need for airway intervention). After further review of the charts, both AEs were deemed likely resulting from underlying pathology and not related to the use of midazolam. The average ED Length of stay (LOS) was 7.6 hours for all patients. A total of 82 (44.1%) were admitted to hospital with a mean in hospital LOS of 13.1 days. Conclusion: Prehospital use of midazolam for combative patients appears to be safe, with no reported delayed AEs. 36.5% of this cohort required further sedation within 1 hour of their ED arrival. This supports previous findings that midazolam was ineffective in 15.1 % of prehospital combative patients. Further study is required to determine midazolam’s efficacy and AE profile compared to other prehospital agents in order to ensure optimal safety of both patients and paramedics.