Recurrent Pregnancy Loss - specialist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 18:57 - I am OP. That's interesting about the missed m/c's - I hadn't heard that before about it being mostly due to chromsomal issues. My first 2 were indeed missed m/c's. We did karyotyping with m/c #2 and it was a chromosomal abnormality. With the first one, it is unknown, although they suspect chromosomal as well due to some things that came up during the ultrasounds. Could I really have bum eggs already at the ripe old age of 32? That's an incredibly depressing thought (not that the rest of this isn't already depressing).

To 21:44 - re: Dr. Scher being expensive, does he not take any insurance?

I am the 18:57 poster. My RE shared with me that 50% of our eggs are chromosomally abnormal in our late 20s and the number keeps rising until we have no good eggs left at menopause. So, there is a good chance that you just had bum luck on those 2 tries and ended up with a bad egg and explains why the 2 REs you saw didn't seem too concerned. You definitely have age on your side and odds are definitely in your favor to have a successful pregnancy.

I do happen to know a little bit about Dr. Scher. He does not take insurance and each consult with him (initial and follow-up to get testing results) runs $1,000. Additional treatments (like intralipids) run more.

[Anonymous]

06:35 - I'm confused. If 50% of eggs are abnormal in late 20's, why isn't the m/c percentage higher? I'm also 32 with one missed m/c behind me. Where did you hear that 85% figure? I guess that's encouraging for those of us that have had a missed m/c and are trying again?

[Anonymous]

Have you and your husband been karotyped? One of you could have an inversion or a translocation that you are passing on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:06:35 - I'm confused. If 50% of eggs are abnormal in late 20's, why isn't the m/c percentage higher? I'm also 32 with one missed m/c behind me. Where did you hear that 85% figure? I guess that's encouraging for those of us that have had a missed m/c and are trying again?

The theory is that the best eggs come forward first, which is why the m/c rate is lower in younger women and higher in older women. Unfortunately, a bad egg comes forward sometimes even in younger women.

The 85% number for misssed m/c was quoted to me by a RE (not my current RE) and was also confirmed on-line. I will see if I can find the article. I agree that these stats for missed m/c are encouraging and support why some docs aren't too concerned with a m/c.

[Anonymous]

Understood and would love to see the article! - 09:14

[Anonymous]

Sorry, one more - was there any reason that that percentage refers to MISSED m/c rather than other types?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, one more - was there any reason that that percentage refers to MISSED m/c rather than other types?

Yes. With a missed m/c, you do not actively miscarry the products of conception and the m/c typically occurs in early pregnancy (before 12 weeks and usually earlier). It is a specific type of m/c and the numbers I saw were limited to that specific type of m/c. Karyotyping can easily confirm the numbers for a missed m/c, since they will be chromosomally abnormal x% of the time - 85% in the case of what I saw. With active m/c, the majority of embryos likely come back chromosomally normal and, as such, other factors have contributed to the m/c and many times doctors can't pinpoint exactly why.

[Anonymous]

Interested to know if anyone else had heard this. I've done a fair amount of research and never have. Wonder if missed m/c therefore means a greater chance of future success than active m/c? One person HAD told me that after my MMC but I think she may have been trying to make me feel better!

[Anonymous]

I have never come across this either (had 2 missed mc and second one was chromosomally normal). And I have read a lot! Would love links.