Normal to have a Nuchal Translucency Test?

[Anonymous]

I am just wondering if it is pretty standard to have this test...I have a daughter who is 18 months and I didn't have it with her, but I am pregnant with #2 and my new doctor feels I should have it. I do not have any history of problems and I am under 35. Just wondering what others are doing..

[Anonymous]

I am older than you, but opted not to take the test. One question you should ask yourself is if you got bad results would you be willing to do an aminio or cvs. If you did an aminio or cvs and got bad results, would you be willing to terminate the pregnancy? DH and I agreed that we would not be willing to terminate a pregnancy and thus did not want to endure the risk of the amnio or cvs. Since we were not willing to go that step, we knew the NT was not for us.

Some people are reassured by the results of a NT. Some still want to get an amnio or cvs even if they get great NT results since they want a definitive answer.

I know one person who did get an amnio although she was not willing to terminate if she got bad results. The reason she had the amnio is that she had one son with severe disabilities and wanted to prepare herself in case her next child had problems as well.

[Anonymous]

NT became std in early 2007.

[Anonymous]

So, I had this test FIVE years ago when no one was doing it and my DR was young and new about the newest stuff. I found it thorough enough that I did NOT have the triple screen (which I think is now the four screen). I have a 16 month old and had another nuchal with her. Great. Totally non-invasive, totally informational, and can help you weed out other tests that have a high false positive rate (triple screen).

Of course, if you trust your dr and your instincts, always follow those!!!

[Anonymous]

I also wasn't offered this test with my first child, but was offered the test this time. I opted to not take it...same reasoning as a prior poster. I knew that I would continue the pregnancy regardless of the results.

Don't let your doctor pressure you into taking it. They make more money if you take it. You'll eventually find out the same information.

[Anonymous]

Search the archives - I posted on this a few months back and others have as well. I didn't have this with #1 but the doctor pushed it this time. Totally non-invasive, lovely to see a very clear ultrasound picture of your baby so early, and in my case so reassuring that I've opted not to do amnio (which I did do for #1 and was totally convinced I'd do again.) My doctor told me that as the NT is becoming more common, the number of women who do the invasive tests like amnio or CVS is dropping. I probably would not terminate under any circumstances but wanted as much info as possible so that I could be prepared for what is to come -- the NT was informative without placing any risk to my pregnancy, so it seemed like a win-win.

[Anonymous]

I had it, and found the results (1 in 8,000 chance of having a child with Down Syndrome) reassuring. If the test had been less encouraging and would have led to my insurance company covering amnio, I would have done it.

Glad I had it...but yes, if you have no desire to find out if your child has Down Syndrome or Trisomy 21 (I think), and wouldn't terminate or do anything differently in your pregnancy, the only reason to get it is if you want to spend a little money (mine was $150 out of pocket) for an ultrasound photo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: DH and I agreed that we would not be willing to terminate a pregnancy and thus did not want to endure the risk of the amnio or cvs. Since we were not willing to go that step, we knew the NT was not for us.

I don't understand this. I understand that you would be unwilling to terminate a pregnancy, and understand that you wouldn't want to have an invasive procedure like amnio or cvs, but I don't understand why you wouldn't want to get more information about your baby's health when there is no risk. Did you also forego the level 2 sonogram around 20 weeks?

I hope this doesn't come across as obnoxious, I'm not trying to be. It's just that I approach these things so differently and am curious about the thought process that would lead you to a different conclusion.

[Anonymous]

To the PP, I think it is entirely understandable for someone not to want to know that the fetus has serious problems. What's the point if they are not willing to terminate? To carry the baby around for 7-8 months (after the typical nuchal testing period) knowing that it has problems? That would be misery. I'd rather have the months of hope and positive feeling (and be devastated on learning of problems) rather than knowing about the problems and constantly doubting my decision not to terminate.... To each her own.

[Anonymous]

I wasn't offered the NT with my first child. This time my doctor recommended it (I'm also a bit older - will be 35 when my DS is born) and I took it. It was a bit disconcerting that the result of my NT indicated I showed an advanced risk for Down's etc. and it was recommended that I follow up with the amnio. I know I could have declined it but at that point I wanted to know one way or the other what was going on with my child. It was a bit nerve wracking for a while there but in the end a great comfort to know that everything was okay. I would do it again (although I don't plan on being pregnant ever again!) ;0)

[Anonymous]

Not PP, but here's an explanation: the NT is merely a screen, not a definitive test. So, once you receive an "abnormal" result from an NT, you are faced with a prospect of either a CVS or Amnio. Both procedures are not without risk (unlike the negligible risk associated with level 2 ultrasound). However, if you do not intend to terminate, why take that risk? The amnio and/or CVS do not provide information that is asbolutely necessary before birth. So, the amino and cvs are a risk without a "benefit," so to speak. Alternatively, after an abnormal NT, you can opt not to have a CVS/Amnio. Instead, such a person would likely spend the next 6 months worrying out the health of the baby -- because again, you would not know definitively one way or another as the NT just gives you a % of having DS or a trisomy.

So, perhaps PP decided to skip the NT because it doesn't actually give you more information about the baby's health. What it gives is a likelihood about the baby's health. The definitive tests carry risk, which would seem unnecessary to someone who wouldn't terminate regardless of the outcome.

Anyway, I'm not PP but that certainly went through my mind when I had the NT.

[Anonymous]

I had the test for all 3 pregnancies and highly recommend it. To me, it wasn't about whether we would terminate a pregnancy or not - there are only a few circumstances, related mostly to situations where the diagnosis pointed to a disorder that would cause the baby to die shortly after birth anyway, that we would have considered termination for. It was about knowledge. If the results turned out "well" then there would be no reason to go through a more invasive test like CVS or amnio. And if it was "bad" there were still good reasons for me to do it - the test isn't just for Downs Syndrome and other trisomy disorders. It also has been shown to flag congenital heart defects and other genetic disorders. Sometimes, like with Downs, there is nothing you can do to treat the problem - but other times I think you can, and wouldn't you want to be made aware of such a problem as early as possible so you could take action or make plans to treat it if the option existed? Also, with something like Downs or another disorder, early information can help you plan your childcare, education of older siblings and other relatives about what to expect, deal with any changes in your work situations or health insurance, etc that you may be better off doing ahead of time instead of immediately post-partum. I just think it is non-invasive, informative, and ultimately helpful irrespective of whether you would use the information to terminate your pregnancy or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also wasn't offered this test with my first child, but was offered the test this time. I opted to not take it...same reasoning as a prior poster. I knew that I would continue the pregnancy regardless of the results.

Don't let your doctor pressure you into taking it. They make more money if you take it. You'll eventually find out the same information.

This is categorically untrue. Your OB does not make money off of this test since they don't perform the test. It's done at a hospital or imaging center.

And while it is always the patient's choice whether to undergo testing, ACOG recommends NT for all pregnant women. It is a non-invasive screening test designed to give earlier insight into the health of the fetus. Little difference, ultimately, between this and the 20 week anatomy scan, which virtually no one voluntarily forgoes. The main difference is that NT includes a finger prick; however, you'd have blood drawn at 16-18 weeks for AFP testing if you don't get the NT, so pretty much the same in the end.

[Anonymous]

PP here, and just to clarify: I'm not saying that the NT can replace the 20 week u/s; rather, I'm saying that they are similar types of tests in terms of their goal -- to monitor fetal health -- and invasiveness.

[Anonymous]

23:01 poster here. As others has stated, we decided to skip the NT because there is a good chance that you will get a false positive (i.e., higher risk) on the test. There is also a fair but lesser chance that it will give you a false negative. NT also only tests for 3 chromosonal abnormalities (Trisomy 21, 18, and 13). There is nothing you can do to correct a fetus having an extra chromosone and we had decided that if we were ever in that situation that we would just take what God handed us. I am willing to undergo tests though that look for problems that in some cases can be corrected in utero (e.g., some neural tube defects). Finally we did have the level 2 songram done at 20 weeks. This sonogram gives a general indication of fetal health and can identify a multitude of treatable conditions. I have had friends whose babies were diagnosed with severe heart defects during this sonogram. Because of this information they were able to be prepared for the problem and in some cases delivered at a the specific hospital best able to care for that particular abnormality.