Are IVF babies always high risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

What? Your friend had ivf with no infertility issues? Wtf?

PP here and I was also surprised. But they were very upfront about it. They knew we had fertility issues so when they told us they were doing IVF, we assumed, but they explained they had this perk through work (it wasn't via insurance -- her company just covered IVF treatment for up to two kids and you didn't need to "qualify" with an established history of infertility). They wanted maximum control over the pregnancies and doing IVF meant they could select the "best" embryo before implantation and maximize the timing based on her fertility window. I don't know, I thought it was weird, but they are fairly normal UMC people otherwise. Though my friend is super type A generally so this is in keeping with her super-controlled, planner personality.

Before that I also did not know that people did IVF without fertility issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

What? Your friend had ivf with no infertility issues? Wtf?

PP here and I was also surprised. But they were very upfront about it. They knew we had fertility issues so when they told us they were doing IVF, we assumed, but they explained they had this perk through work (it wasn't via insurance -- her company just covered IVF treatment for up to two kids and you didn't need to "qualify" with an established history of infertility). They wanted maximum control over the pregnancies and doing IVF meant they could select the "best" embryo before implantation and maximize the timing based on her fertility window. I don't know, I thought it was weird, but they are fairly normal UMC people otherwise. Though my friend is super type A generally so this is in keeping with her super-controlled, planner personality.

Before that I also did not know that people did IVF without fertility issues.

That is profoundly unethical and disgusting. I could not be friends with someone like that. I couldn’t stomach it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I delivered with the GW midwives and they are very low intervention- and they told me up front that I would not be allowed to go past 39 weeks. They also said my IVF and my age were 2 strikes for risk and if anything else presented they had to switch me to OB care.

I don’t understand why IVF is automatically a risk once the pregnancy is established, but I appreciated their transparency and honesty about what risks they were willing to take on and which they were not.

40 is full term, why would you not be allowed to go beyond 39?

This doesn't sound right to me and I used GW midwives. They had a LOT of rules but I went to almost 42 weeks and delivered without intervention. I didn't conceive through IVF but I was I was AMA and had some complications during pregnancy that resulted in more testing and visits late in my pregnancy. But the didn't seem fazed by how late I went (they were starting to talk about potentially inducing by the time I went into labor, but it was like "if this goes another 3 days, we need to keep a close eye and might have to induce" because at that point the baby was very late.

Is there some statistic on IVF pregnancies and term length that would indicate this? Just surprised to hear this from GW midwives given their general vibe (it wound up actually being too restrictive for me and if I did it again, I'd use the midwives program at Washington Hospital Center instead).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

What? Your friend had ivf with no infertility issues? Wtf?

PP here and I was also surprised. But they were very upfront about it. They knew we had fertility issues so when they told us they were doing IVF, we assumed, but they explained they had this perk through work (it wasn't via insurance -- her company just covered IVF treatment for up to two kids and you didn't need to "qualify" with an established history of infertility). They wanted maximum control over the pregnancies and doing IVF meant they could select the "best" embryo before implantation and maximize the timing based on her fertility window. I don't know, I thought it was weird, but they are fairly normal UMC people otherwise. Though my friend is super type A generally so this is in keeping with her super-controlled, planner personality.

Before that I also did not know that people did IVF without fertility issues.

That is profoundly unethical and disgusting. I could not be friends with someone like that. I couldn’t stomach it.

PP and... why? I thought it was strange but why is it "unethical and disgusting"? I truly don't understand the objection. It's not what I would do but IVF is a pretty normal procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I delivered with the GW midwives and they are very low intervention- and they told me up front that I would not be allowed to go past 39 weeks. They also said my IVF and my age were 2 strikes for risk and if anything else presented they had to switch me to OB care.

I don’t understand why IVF is automatically a risk once the pregnancy is established, but I appreciated their transparency and honesty about what risks they were willing to take on and which they were not.

40 is full term, why would you not be allowed to go beyond 39?

This doesn't sound right to me and I used GW midwives. They had a LOT of rules but I went to almost 42 weeks and delivered without intervention. I didn't conceive through IVF but I was I was AMA and had some complications during pregnancy that resulted in more testing and visits late in my pregnancy. But the didn't seem fazed by how late I went (they were starting to talk about potentially inducing by the time I went into labor, but it was like "if this goes another 3 days, we need to keep a close eye and might have to induce" because at that point the baby was very late.

Is there some statistic on IVF pregnancies and term length that would indicate this? Just surprised to hear this from GW midwives given their general vibe (it wound up actually being too restrictive for me and if I did it again, I'd use the midwives program at Washington Hospital Center instead).

I delivered with the midwives at GW and had an IVF pregnancy AND AMA but they never suggested but mentioned the Arrive study. I went to 42 weeks - they didn’t recommend me going past that date but definitely didn’t recommend 39 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Some studies that say going to 40+ for IVF pregnancies increase chance of a stillbirth but the study is lacking and it depends on the practice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.

1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan

I had none of these and was in my 40s for both pregnancies! I had GD testing on the normal schedule, delivered at 40 weeks both times, no aspirin. I did have cervical monitoring but that was related to HPV a decade before and not IVF related. Due to my age and cervical issues I had ultrasounds quite frequently—so for #5 I had these plus several more.

[Anonymous]

Only 2 and 5 and I was 38. 5 is standard for all pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

What? Your friend had ivf with no infertility issues? Wtf?

PP here and I was also surprised. But they were very upfront about it. They knew we had fertility issues so when they told us they were doing IVF, we assumed, but they explained they had this perk through work (it wasn't via insurance -- her company just covered IVF treatment for up to two kids and you didn't need to "qualify" with an established history of infertility). They wanted maximum control over the pregnancies and doing IVF meant they could select the "best" embryo before implantation and maximize the timing based on her fertility window. I don't know, I thought it was weird, but they are fairly normal UMC people otherwise. Though my friend is super type A generally so this is in keeping with her super-controlled, planner personality.

Before that I also did not know that people did IVF without fertility issues.

That is profoundly unethical and disgusting. I could not be friends with someone like that. I couldn’t stomach it.

PP and... why? I thought it was strange but why is it "unethical and disgusting"? I truly don't understand the objection. It's not what I would do but IVF is a pretty normal procedure.

NP. You really cannot see why that would be. For one, it commoditizes babies for convenience. That itself is unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

This is mind boggling to me.

I know same sex couples who have done RIVF, who are also low risk with no evidence of infertility, but I can't imagine doing IVF just for the timing.

[Anonymous]

This was 9 years ago but my only extras from IVF were a fetal echo and induction before 40 weeks (I was induced at 39w6d and was already 3 cm dilated, so I didn’t need to go in overnight for ripening and only had to show up at 6 a.m. day-of).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only 2 and 5 and I was 38. 5 is standard for all pregnancies.

16 week anatomy scan is not standard.

[Anonymous]

What doc is this? Curious because all extra monitoring sounds great to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.

1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan

2 ivf pregnancies, one at 38 and one at 42/43. Low dose aspirin and echo at 23 weeks both times. Induction planned at 39 weeks for second pregnancy. This guidance came from both fertility clinic and OB’s office. Fertility doc wrote “nothing beneficial cones after 39 weeks” on the letter sent to my OB’s clinic when I graduated. But I don’t think you can be induced before 39 weeks without some kind of medical indication, and a healthy ivf pregnancy wouldn’t be an example of that.

The echo is a neat scan and to my knowledge, no risks. Ivf pregnancies at any age have a slightly higher risk of heart issues, hence the echo.

Outside the induction, it’s just a little extra help. All of this made me more comfortable and confidence after a lengthy ivf journey.

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

This is completely insane.