Possible solutions for oxygenation support in critically ill patients with COVID-19

Purpose Due to the large number of patients with respiratory deficiency during the COVID-19 pandemic, several governments and their respective health care services have been studying ways to complement the care provided by offering immediate solutions. In view of this, the aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the advantages and disadvantages of possible solutions in oxygenation support. Methods This systematic review used the PRISMA-P methodology and sought to list alternatives in oxygenation support that are being applied and studied worldwide. A bibliographic search was conducted in the MEDLINE and Cochrane Central databases, using the keywords SARS-CoV-2, COVID19, or coronavirus; combined with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), mechanical ventilation, mechanical ventilation support, low-cost, anesthesia, anesthesia machine, and ventilation therapy. The records were also found in the gray literature. Results The search found 85 publications of which 41 articles were considered after excluding duplicate articles, reading the title and summary, and reading the articles in full. The oxygenation supports identified in these publications were the following: ECMO, shared mechanical ventilator, fast or low-cost production equipment, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive ventilation, and use of anesthesia equipment as a mechanical ventilator. Conclusion This study demonstrated the importance of a trained clinical team in the application of technologies. The alternatives found for support oxygenation require a more robust clinical evaluation to demonstrate their efficacy and safety for the COVID-19 patient.