IVF chances at age 44

[Anonymous]

your chances are 1% with your own eggs. 60% using DE. i had my second at 44 with DE and had no problem carrying.

[Anonymous]

My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.

[Anonymous]

Forget chances. I had my third - naturally - at 43 after 1 natural conception, then 1 IVF and then 5 years later. You can probably by now tell if you are ovulating - just have sex when you are!

I think the age thing and the odds only applies if you have never been pregnant.

[Anonymous]

If you REALLY want a 3rd - straight to IVF with PGS testing. 90% of your embryos will be abnormal. I am 42 and tried for a second for 5 years - i got lucky, made one embryo was normal and am in my third tri. But that was after 10 failed untested transfers

[Anonymous]

OP you asked so I’m answering. You have 2 healthy kids. If you get pregnant naturally great. IVF no. But 44. 45 when born is very old. Wait until you finally get them to college and you are 60+ with all that drama and expense. Also I personally would not roll the dice again. Too much risk for me. By the way I had twins at 45. Don’t recommend it.

[Anonymous]

My experience trying to get pregnant was that it can be pretty stressful. I would give yourself a window of time and if it doesn't happen naturally, be at peace with it. It sounds like you have a wonderful family. Congratulations and good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gosh, I would absolutely not have a 3rd. You already have two healthy kids. It just seems unnecessary given all the health concerns when you not only have 1 but have the sibling experience as well.

So unnecessary. Noone asked your opinion on adding another child.

Um, actually the OP did. She literally started a threat to ask. Dumb much?

Don’t be a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the problem is that most of the embryos will be chromosomally abnormal. so if you do get pregnant w/o intervention and don't miscarry, your first chance to do genetic testing is at 10-13 weeks gestation, and there is a 1/800 chance of miscarriage associated with CVS. and then you'd possibly have to decide if you were ok with termination for medical reasons.

with IVF you can at least test the embryos beforehand...

DP here, in this exact situation at age 42. I have history of recurrent pregnancy loss. Pregnancy #4 was with IUI, was successful, delivered on day I turned 39.5 years old (so baby turned 6 mo on my 40th birthday). Did 3 IUIs this year; pregnant on attempts 2 & 3. First pregnancy - slow heartbeat at 6 & 7 week ultrasound, no heartbeat at 8 weeks. Testing afterward showed aneuploidy. Second IUI pregnancy was first possible cycle after miscarriage. Everything was great until NIPT & 12 week ultrasound - trisomy 21, cystic hygroma, week later it was advancing toward fetal hydrops. Terminated at 14 weeks. Will be starting IVF in new year so we can test embryos.
Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.

But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.

But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).

One more thing to the poster I replied to: I was only asking “at age 44” because I’m curious if you drilled down to that level with your RE, not to question what you wrote here. I’m interested in the answer. Sorry if this was inarticulate/sounded snarky!

[Anonymous]

I had my third at 45 (got pregnant at 44). I would not do IVF at that age. you are not likely to have a huge number of eggs and the process is harsh on your body and the embryos. since you already conceived #2 naturally and quickly, just keep doing it a month after month and make sure your timing as ok. I was doing it for about two years, every cycle, and had several chemicals and one MC at 11 weeks during that period. But I persisted and it paid off. However, I would not have done IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.

But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).

no, this is the worst path. it's stressful, expensive, unhealthy and it's entirely unclear that the process substantially increases the odds of a healthy child at this age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.

But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).

no, this is the worst path. it's stressful, expensive, unhealthy and it's entirely unclear that the process substantially increases the odds of a healthy child at this age.

She would have a great chance with IVF with DE. She hasn’t mentioned finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.

But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).

no, this is the worst path. it's stressful, expensive, unhealthy and it's entirely unclear that the process substantially increases the odds of a healthy child at this age.

She would have a great chance with IVF with DE. She hasn’t mentioned finances.

um, she didn't mention DE either. where did that come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My RE told me that the IVF stats do not apply to people who conceived naturally and easily the first time. I ended up getting pregnant naturally and lucked out with a healthy baby but in you're case if give IVF a try and have the embryos tested for the most common age-related genetic variations.

But at age 44? I think OP got good advice to go straight to IVF with genetic testing if she really, really wants another child. I would think this is the best path for her given her age (provided finances are not a concern, and she’s provided no info suggesting that they are).

no, this is the worst path. it's stressful, expensive, unhealthy and it's entirely unclear that the process substantially increases the odds of a healthy child at this age.

She would have a great chance with IVF with DE. She hasn’t mentioned finances.

um, she didn't mention DE either. where did that come from?

I’m PP, yes in fact she seems to not want DE. Just was offering that DE would be a great chance and it’s likely a lot of people having IVF at that age or older use DE.