Forum Index
»
Expectant and Postpartum Moms
35+ and pregnant
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
OP, and thanks again for all the thoughtful responses.
Yes, this all comes down to personal choice in the end (much like everything to do with pregnancy and motherhood!), and as someone pointed out, much of it comes down to whether you would terminate or not. And yes, I think it's a very good point regarding how much value one places on reassurance vs. risk. i'm one of those people who tends to opt for risk; hence, not having done the tests with the first baby--feeling pretty sure that everything would turn out fine. I felt pretty sure this time round that everything would be fine too, but I guess this time I needed some more reassurance than I did last time, which is why I felt the need to post here. And I'm glad I did. It's nice to be able to read such considered posts from everyone. Thanks. |
Anonymous
| I had an amnio with #1 when I was 36, but this time around I'm 40 and opted not to do it or the CVS. My OB told me that the increasing useage of the NT is actually reducing the numbers of women who opt for more invasive testing. Not sure if that's true - when I posted for advice here, it seemed like everyone wanted definitive answers and had one or the other test, and previously I would have imagined that would be my choice as well. But between good-enough results on the NT and an earlier-than-usual 20w detailed ultrasound, I felt pretty confident that any major issues were likely to be flagged. Also like one of the PPs, we did not envision ourselves ending the pregnancy over Downs, so our calculus inevitably favored the approach with fewer risks. Plus add in a m/c in between the two pregnancis and this felt like the right choice. Honestly I'm so neurotic I didn't think that I could wait 40 weeks for "definitive" answers, but as I'm in the home stretch now I feel good about our choice. Good luck to you! |
jennrgolden
Member Offline
Member Offline
I didn't read all of the responses so I apologize if repeat something. I turned 35 during my first pregnancy, and I'm now 37 during my second. I did NOT do the invasive down-syndrome test for either - despite the geneology person urging me a bit more than she should have during the first pregnancy. The way I saw it was, it has the possibility of causing problems for the baby PLUS they have a high rate of false positives - these two combined made the decision very easy for me - no test. My approach last time and this time was this: have them do the blood test first (blood is drawn from you - your arm no where else) to see if there are any warning signs. If there had been any issues with the blood test THEN I would revisit the invasive approach. Having said all of that, it seems I've read an article lately that they have developed a safer more non-invasive way to test. |
Anonymous
| I was 37 when I had my first and all I did was the NT screen. My results came back much better than for my age, so I opted not to do any invasive testing (at my OB's recommendation) and everything turned out fine. |
Anonymous
|
I'm 36, and my NT came back 1 in 3000 for Down syndrome, 1 in 6000 for 13/18, same as a woman in her early 20s, so opted to skip CVS. We have our detailed ultrasound at 19 weeks next week, and if there are irregularities we will immediately schedule an amnio. With such good odds, I don't want to risk an invasive test unless there is good reason to.
That said, I've been stressing this week that maybe we should just do the amnio anyway. But it seems reckless when the risk of miscarriage is higher than the odds from my NT. I will be very relieved to get that US over with next week and know more about how things are progressing. FWIW, I am an information junkie too, and the type who reads too much about everything, so I like to know more rather than less - but with those odds it seemed better to wait and see. |
Anonymous
| I did all the screening tests available - I'm 35. The results of our nuchal translucency test were such that my OB wanted to do the amnio to rule out Downs etc. Everything turned out fine. |
Anonymous
| I'm 35+ and had a CVS done by Dr. Evelyn Karson on Old Georgetown Rd. She was amazing and I didn't even have spotting. We liked it better than amnio because it can be done earlier and we would have terminated if there was a severe chromo. anomaly. I think it depends on how much peace of mind you're comfortable with.... |
Anonymous
|
I also wanted to mention that having a history of fertility problems made me more reluctant to do amnio at age 37. I figured that in the unlikely event that I did have a miscarriage, there was a strong possibility I might not get pregnant again.
I was fortunate in that my NT combined with the sequential bloodwork screening showed my risk of DS to be very low, which was reassuring. I'm not sure what we would have done with a more borderline case, like a calculated risk of 1/200, for example, because I would really want to prepare myself for a baby with DS. But I also think that the 20-week ultrasound tends to reveal DS and spina bifida, as well. So you can get some pretty good info without undergoing the more invasive tests. Still, the amnio and CVS results are more definitive. |
Anonymous
|
Just another story: I got pregnant at 35, delivered at 36 a healthy baby. I had CVS testing done, covered by my insurance, at the IVF Institute in Fairfax. It was fast, well done, with risks at or lower than amnio.
It was the right choice for us because we wanted to know. |