How worried to be about birth defects with advanced maternal age?

[Anonymous]

I had mine at 41 and 43 via IVF and did NIPT testing around 11 weeks. I didn't to PGS testing prior to implantation, because at the time it was prohibitively expensive. I have two healthy kids and had no complications in my pregnancies, but definitely went into it with my eyes wide open as to the risks and options for termination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had mine at 41 and 43 via IVF and did NIPT testing around 11 weeks. I didn't to PGS testing prior to implantation, because at the time it was prohibitively expensive. I have two healthy kids and had no complications in my pregnancies, but definitely went into it with my eyes wide open as to the risks and options for termination.

Wow. Very old and risky

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your age is not the issue - you are still young. The issue is that you now have two kids and so the toll and impact of something going wrong with the third would be more difficult to manage. The stakes are higher now and that can’t be changed. He has a lower tolerance for the potential impact of something going wrong. I don’t think you can change that with data. I think you can just both talk through your hopes and fears and see where it gets you.

this. the problem is not your age, which is relatively young, the problem is that there is always risk of undetectable defect or pregnancy complication. this can happen whether you are 20 or 30. it could have happened with your previous children as well, but didn't. you were lucky. do you want to roll the dice again? this is the question you are facing, not the impact of age, which does exist but it's still small at 36-37.

Another agree with this. I had my first 2 kids at 31 and 33, then a third at 37. It is actually my middle kid who has ADHD and mild Autism. So we knew going in to having #3 that we had a kid with SNs and we decided we could handle whatever else came along with our third (who is thankfully showing no signs of any delays or health issues). So there ya go that it was a baby I had under age 35 that has SNs.

I’ll add that even if you have a healthy third baby, any of your kids could get sick/injured in the future, or face mental health challenges. There just isn’t any guarantee in life of having healthy children.

So I’d factor out age because 37 isn’t a huge risk in itself, but be honest with yourselves about whether you have the resources for 3 if things aren’t picture perfect the whole 18+ years. In our case we have flexible jobs and financial stability/family help so we felt okay taking the leap to having a third. But we know this is our limit.

[Anonymous]

When I was 45 and wife 43 we one night said let’s got for third.

My Polish friend told if you leave your socks on it adds to your fertility and it worked one try and pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Nowadays, it's easier and safer than ever. A karyotyping test can assess the risk of having a baby with aneuploidies. If the risk is high, combining IVF with PGD can help ensure a healthy pregnancy and baby (source: Fertility Road site)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my third at 34 (2 months before turning 35). I am extremely risk adverse and had amniocentesis with my second (at 31) and third (at 34). DH and I had genetic tests done with our third (not sure those were available with previous pregnancies). We really wanted to rule out any abnormalities and knew we would terminate if something was wrong.
However, the geneticist at our appointment told us that while we did all screenings we could, we only covered about 30% of possible conditions. There are many other issues they don’t test for. I believe they also said that 1 in 10 (or perhaps was 1 out of 100) babies are born with some sort of malformation.

My point is that while risks are low, they are there.

By having a third, you are increasing your chances that something goes wrong.

All of my children are fine for now, but they could develop something later on or have a learning disability (my third is only 4).

I feel so lucky that I had 3 healthy (at least for now) children, but looking back and knowing how hard it is with 3, I feel we would not have survived having a third child with disabilities. We are stretched thin as it is and all my kids need always more (and it increases as they get older).

For what is worth, I was “young” but my husband is 11 years older than me and was 46 when our third was born.

No where on this thread is the risks associated with older fathers, including birth defects, low birth weight, and some developmental disorders schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and autism. Risks for guys begin at 35, too!

Good luck OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be concerned and monitor closely don't listen to the people on here they think they can defy science

this isn't defying science - the women of yesteryear who had 12+ children were all having children past 35. you have no idea WHAT you are talking about.

Yup, my grandmothers mom did have her last of 10 kids at age 45. That one did have issues butit was delivered at home with no medical care, and she was very obese so already not ideal — plus not sure if the issues were even congenital or were from something like childhood measles. My dad only remembered he had an uncle the same age as him but who couldn’t come out to play and then died young. The other kids and had in her 30/ and 40/ all healthy. I have lots of family members who had kids well into their 40s and had no issues.

Anyway, the risks for downs go up slightly every year but are still quite small before 40. There’s an association with older dads and autism but that is talking about dads in their 50s and 60/ and later — not 37 year old dads. You can find these studies on line or talk to a genetic counselor.

One thing that is real is just how tired you get. I had my last at 38 and I just couldn’t do the late hours work for my job after putting kids to bed into my 40s. So my work productivity really dropped after my third.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SIL had BOTH her kids after 35 (38 and 43) and both came out with zero defects or delays. The two people I know whose babies had Downs were under 35 when their kids were born.

While it is commendable that your SIL had healthy children after the age of 35, it is important to note that individual anecdotes cannot be used to make generalizations or dismiss the potential risks associated with advanced maternal age. Here are some statistics and information to refute the statement and highlight the dangers of spreading misinformation:

1. Increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities: Advanced maternal age, typically defined as 35 years and older, is associated with a higher risk of chromosomal abnormalities in babies. For example, the risk of Down syndrome significantly increases with maternal age. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the risk of having a baby with Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350, while at age 40, it increases to about 1 in 100, and by age 45, it becomes approximately 1 in 30.

2. Risk of other genetic disorders: Advanced maternal age also increases the risk of other genetic disorders, such as trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. These conditions can lead to severe developmental delays, intellectual disabilities, and various physical abnormalities.

3. Health complications for the mother: Pregnancy after the age of 35 carries higher risks for the mother as well. Women of advanced maternal age have an increased likelihood of developing gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, and other pregnancy-related complications. These conditions can have long-term health consequences for both the mother and the baby.

4. Statistical evidence: While anecdotes can be compelling, it is crucial to rely on broader statistical evidence to assess risks accurately. Large-scale studies and data analysis consistently demonstrate an association between advanced maternal age and an increased likelihood of chromosomal abnormalities and other pregnancy complications.

5. Consultation with healthcare professionals: When it comes to matters of pregnancy and reproductive health, it is always advisable to consult with healthcare professionals who can provide evidence-based information tailored to individual circumstances. They can assess personal risk factors, provide appropriate prenatal testing options, and offer guidance based on the most up-to-date medical knowledge.

It is essential to stop spreading dangerous information that downplays the potential risks associated with advanced maternal age. By relying on accurate statistics and seeking reliable medical advice, individuals can make informed decisions about their reproductive health and better understand the potential challenges they may face.

Wow you know OPs chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome is 1 in 400. Also, do you know people with Down Syndrome generally live fairly "normal" lives until they get early on set Alzheimers in their 50s, so perhaps this concern for siblings is over blown. The fear mongering of Down Syndrome and the selfishness of people who will not have supposedly perfect kids is astonishing. You know you all have a 1 in 34 chance of having a child with Autism today - can we screen to kill all of these kids too asap?

It would be easier just to reject the common practice of loading little babies/toddlers up with vaccines.

It's shocking how much autism prevalence has increased over the decades, right along with the number of times little ones are injected with these chemical cocktails.

The only place ever known to experience a decline in autism rates had a decline in parents taking their kids to be injected so much.
https://deeprootsathome.com/why-marin-county-had-a-record-breaking-decline-in-autism-rates/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be concerned and monitor closely don't listen to the people on here they think they can defy science

this isn't defying science - the women of yesteryear who had 12+ children were all having children past 35. you have no idea WHAT you are talking about.

I've heard (I listen to a lot of podcasts on health while driving so can't remember where/who) that it's easier to have children past 35 if you've already been having them. Apparently, the increased difficulty comes when you are trying to have your first.

It would be interesting to know if it's a matter of the body never having gone through the process (as a single factor) or if it's caused by a certain number of years/decades of chemical birth control messing up the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My SIL had BOTH her kids after 35 (38 and 43) and both came out with zero defects or delays. The two people I know whose babies had Downs were under 35 when their kids were born.

While it is commendable that your SIL had healthy children after the age of 35, it is important to note that individual anecdotes cannot be used to make generalizations or dismiss the potential risks associated with advanced maternal age. Here are some statistics and information to refute the statement and highlight the dangers of spreading misinformation:

1. Increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities: Advanced maternal age, typically defined as 35 years and older, is associated with a higher risk of chromosomal abnormalities in babies. For example, the risk of Down syndrome significantly increases with maternal age. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the risk of having a baby with Down syndrome at age 35 is about 1 in 350, while at age 40, it increases to about 1 in 100, and by age 45, it becomes approximately 1 in 30.

2. Risk of other genetic disorders: Advanced maternal age also increases the risk of other genetic disorders, such as trisomy 18 and trisomy 13. These conditions can lead to severe developmental delays, intellectual disabilities, and various physical abnormalities.

3. Health complications for the mother: Pregnancy after the age of 35 carries higher risks for the mother as well. Women of advanced maternal age have an increased likelihood of developing gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, and other pregnancy-related complications. These conditions can have long-term health consequences for both the mother and the baby.

4. Statistical evidence: While anecdotes can be compelling, it is crucial to rely on broader statistical evidence to assess risks accurately. Large-scale studies and data analysis consistently demonstrate an association between advanced maternal age and an increased likelihood of chromosomal abnormalities and other pregnancy complications.

5. Consultation with healthcare professionals: When it comes to matters of pregnancy and reproductive health, it is always advisable to consult with healthcare professionals who can provide evidence-based information tailored to individual circumstances. They can assess personal risk factors, provide appropriate prenatal testing options, and offer guidance based on the most up-to-date medical knowledge.

It is essential to stop spreading dangerous information that downplays the potential risks associated with advanced maternal age. By relying on accurate statistics and seeking reliable medical advice, individuals can make informed decisions about their reproductive health and better understand the potential challenges they may face.

Wow you know OPs chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome is 1 in 400. Also, do you know people with Down Syndrome generally live fairly "normal" lives until they get early on set Alzheimers in their 50s, so perhaps this concern for siblings is over blown. The fear mongering of Down Syndrome and the selfishness of people who will not have supposedly perfect kids is astonishing. You know you all have a 1 in 34 chance of having a child with Autism today - can we screen to kill all of these kids too asap?

It would be easier just to reject the common practice of loading little babies/toddlers up with vaccines.

It's shocking how much autism prevalence has increased over the decades, right along with the number of times little ones are injected with these chemical cocktails.

The only place ever known to experience a decline in autism rates had a decline in parents taking their kids to be injected so much.
https://deeprootsathome.com/why-marin-county-had-a-record-breaking-decline-in-autism-rates/

There is literally no reputable evidence to suggest that vaccines cause autism. The increase in diagnosis has to with a higher frequency of screening and more aggressive diagnosis with people that have less severe autism symptoms. The increase in parental age has also increased the frequency of autism due to kids with older parents inheriting more de novo mutations on average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be concerned and monitor closely don't listen to the people on here they think they can defy science

this isn't defying science - the women of yesteryear who had 12+ children were all having children past 35. you have no idea WHAT you are talking about.

I've heard (I listen to a lot of podcasts on health while driving so can't remember where/who) that it's easier to have children past 35 if you've already been having them. Apparently, the increased difficulty comes when you are trying to have your first.

It would be interesting to know if it's a matter of the body never having gone through the process (as a single factor) or if it's caused by a certain number of years/decades of chemical birth control messing up the system.

I think the causality for this phenomenon is largely the opposite. People who have higher fertility levels are more likely to have an accidental or intentional pregnancy at an earlier age simply because it is easier for them to get pregnant. Someone with lower fertility levels is less likely to get pregnant on accident or on purpose. So they are more likely to have trouble getting pregnant at a later age even if they are trying to do so.