Objective Pulmonary edema is a feature of preeclampsia with severe features (SPEC), but it is unknown whether oxygen saturation (O2 sat) levels can predict pulmonary edema in patients with SPEC. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare O2 sat trends in patients with SPEC with and without pulmonary edema.

Study Design This is a nested case-control study within a retrospective cohort of all patients with SPEC who delivered at a tertiary academic hospital in 2019. Cases were defined as a clinical diagnosis of pulmonary edema (based on imaging findings or clinical concern coupled with empiric treatment with IV diuretic) on postpartum day 0 (PPD0). Controls were patients with SPEC and without pulmonary edema on PPD0. All patients with at least 25 oxygen saturation levels recorded on PPD0 were included. O2 sat trends as well as demographic and clinical features of patients with and without pulmonary edema were compared.

Results 238 patients in total were included. Five patients (2.1%) were diagnosed with pulmonary edema on PPD0. There were no significant differences in demographic or major obstetric characteristics of patients with and without pulmonary edema. There were also no significant differences between groups in the number of patients with at least one abnormal O2 sat, with a large volume of abnormal O2 sat values in both groups. Significant differences were seen in the minimum oxygen saturation level recorded (92 v. 89, p < 0.04) and the overall percent of abnormal values (7.0% abnormal values without pulmonary edema compared to 46.0% with pulmonary edema, p < 0.01).

Conclusions Individual O2 sat values are poorly predictive of pulmonary edema in patients at risk, but trends may be more prognostic. Algorithms that employ real-time data trending may position O2 sat as a better surveillance tool for pulmonary edema in patients with SPEC.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

IRB of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania waived ethical approval for this work.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.