I would find someone who will do the scan. Our first two pregnancies, I was 34 & 36), I had both done on the same day and both came out fine. Our third pregnancy this past January, we went in for the NT/12 week scan and received devastating news that the baby had a massive cystic hygroma (the fluid sac they look for in the NT scan was 3x's the normal measurement and surrounded the baby's entire upper body). We never did the NIPT test this pregnancy for obvious reasons as we already knew something was wrong, but I would never have forgiven myself if we had received positive news from the NIPT test and not bothered with the 12 week ultrasound/NT scan. I can't imagine going through getting horrible news at the 20 week scan about an abnormality that could have been seen much earlier in the pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:10:48 PP here. I should probably add that I am a very high risk and a geriatric pregnancy (37).

Geriatric??

I had my NIPT in Dec. (pre-covid) and had no NT. Instead they tested alpha-fetoprotein for neural tube defects like spina bifida. They said NT scan is repetitive of NIPT and prone to false positives. Anatomy scan looked fine. Am 3rd tri now and I presume all is well.

I'm a Kaiser patient as well. I gave birth last year at 35 and was only ever offered NIPT. NT was not mentioned. I was grateful to not have the added stress as my understanding was NIPT is more accurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next time I will only do the NT. My NIPT showed me positive for a condition my baby didn’t have and caused so much unnecessary stress. NT was spot-on and helped my doctors make informed decisions about the management of my prenatal care.

False positive rate for NT is much higher than NIPT and they don't diagnose, they assess risk.

I don’t know why people on these forums defend NIPT so much. Congrats, you had one accurate result! I met with the entire geneticist team at Johns Hopkins and can tell you they’re much less accurate than they claim. But regardless, the post is about skipping NT in favor of NIPT and as someone who has spent countless hours of research on these tests I’m stating my informed opinion that I would never ever do that.

They are used together for a reason. But regardless your informed opinion doesn't change that the NT can't actually diagnose anything at all. It's measurements.

Anonymous wrote:Next time I will only do the NT. My NIPT showed me positive for a condition my baby didn’t have and caused so much unnecessary stress. NT was spot-on and helped my doctors make informed decisions about the management of my prenatal care.

Then why not just go straight for the amnio? To rely on NT is really stupid. It's literally dependent on measurements taken by an ultrasound tech. It's not meant to diagnose anything. And NIPT is a screening test, also does not diagnose anything. It's simply shows your risk based on factors.

There is no reason to fight about NT versus NIPT. In the end if you want to know for sure both these tests would be useless. An amnio or CVS is the way to go. Yes, invasive but at least it tells you a definitive answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next time I will only do the NT. My NIPT showed me positive for a condition my baby didn’t have and caused so much unnecessary stress. NT was spot-on and helped my doctors make informed decisions about the management of my prenatal care.

False positive rate for NT is much higher than NIPT and they don't diagnose, they assess risk.

I don’t know why people on these forums defend NIPT so much. Congrats, you had one accurate result! I met with the entire geneticist team at Johns Hopkins and can tell you they’re much less accurate than they claim. But regardless, the post is about skipping NT in favor of NIPT and as someone who has spent countless hours of research on these tests I’m stating my informed opinion that I would never ever do that.

Anonymous wrote:Next time I will only do the NT. My NIPT showed me positive for a condition my baby didn’t have and caused so much unnecessary stress. NT was spot-on and helped my doctors make informed decisions about the management of my prenatal care.

False positive rate for NT is much higher than NIPT and they don't diagnose, they assess risk.

Next time I will only do the NT. My NIPT showed me positive for a condition my baby didn’t have and caused so much unnecessary stress. NT was spot-on and helped my doctors make informed decisions about the management of my prenatal care.

I would think that if you would want NT as well, especially if over 35. There are a lot of conditions associated with a thickened NT and then you'd have the choice for an amnio.

I'm a Kaiser patient and posted in another thread that for them, the NIPT replaces the NT. It's not a COVID thing, it's a statistical risk thing. However, you have the option of an amnio.

I don't love it, but probably won't seek out a whole separate practice to pay out of pocket for an NT. I might opt for an amnio, still thinking.

Prenatal care has been straight crap since this all started. So many of my appointments have been cancelled. I'm also 37 and feel like my care has been inadequate.

It makes me angry but I also feel helpless. I feel like nobody is caring about these babies or moms right now. I'm

10:48 PP here. I should probably add that I am a very high risk and a geriatric pregnancy (37).

Hmm, that's a little strange.

I had the cell free DNA test last week (came back negative) and will be going in for my NT scan/blood work next week (I will be 12.5 weeks).

My OB practice has completely stopped doing NT scans in favor of the NIPT because of covid. Last pregnancy I had both. While I’m mostly annoyed because I just really want to see the baby, I’m also a little concerned that the NT might pick up on any deformities, etc that the NIPT wouldn’t.

Is anyone else’s OB doing this?