Nuchal of 2.3mm

(9 Posts)
muffins Thu 24-Mar-11 18:44:12


I'm probably just being a worrier but had nuchal today at 12 + 5. it meaured 2.3mm which I know is at the upper end of normal.
Has anyone else had similar and if so what did ur risk come out at after bloods?
I'm 26 btw.

Thanks in advance

muffins x

Sparklies Thu 24-Mar-11 20:00:45

At your gestation that's not too bad at all. It's not low, but it's not worryingly high either - I think it's around 1.4MoM.

As you asked - I had a measurement of 2.2mm at 12w6d. They (Fetal Medicine Centre) said that was absolutely fine. It was my "terrible" bloodwork that caused me to have a risk of 1 in 34 as the bloodwork risk was 1 in 8. Bloodwork can change everything in either direction. Mine was particularly bad - most people's results are just fine especially if the NT looks good. My baby does not have Down Syndrome for what it's worth.

I'd guess on NT alone your odds are somewhere around the 1 in 1,000 mark. I am no doctor however, and that is based on probably dodgy online calculators such as this one:

Sparklies Thu 24-Mar-11 20:02:10

Sorry, should have said that 1.0MoM is the average - and people only start getting concerned at 2.0MoM for NT which yours is nowhere near!

muffins Fri 25-Mar-11 08:02:47

Hi sparklies

thanks for the reply, what does MoM stand for?
I don't even know when I'll get the results if it's high risk, perhaps by end of Tuesday at the latest but I'm just guessing...don't know if the labs open at the weekends.
Think I'll go have a look at that dodgy online calculator

Yaya70 Fri 25-Mar-11 08:06:43

A nuchal of 2.3 mm sounds fine to me, so try not to worry. Your risk is based on many things, so it's difficult to read too much into one part of the risk calculation. The starting point for calculating your risk is your age. So at age 26, I would guestimate that your risk is quite low.

I had a measurement of 2.0 and 2.1 with my twins. The 2.1 twin was fine chromosomally, but the 2.0 twin had Down's syndrome. I was given risks of 1:2 and 1:26, but mainly because of the bad bloodwork and some soft markers of Down's syndrome on the scan (no nasal bone on one, and both had tricuspid regurgitation). I'm 40.

PS. Sparklies, great news that you got the all clear after everything you've been through.

muffins Fri 25-Mar-11 08:35:22

Hi Yaya,

This little one does have a nasal bone which is encouraging I guess.

I think what makes it worse is that I actually work as a sonographer. So whilst I fully understand how silly I am being worrying I still can't stop myself.
If I didn't do this job and had come for a dating alone then I'd be none the wiser.
I don't do nuchal scans though and to be honest I'm not sure I want to start!
A few of the ladies I work with who do them say they wouldn't have a nuchal scan done on themselves and I'm starting to understand why!
I also am not sure whether I want to know what the risk is in numbers. If it comes back as low risk I'd rather just know that than if it was 1 in 160 for example when our cutoff is 1 in 150.
Might just get DP to open the letter if it comes back as low risk and then burn it!

I'm just going to try and relax over the weekend (I sat sobbing my heart out after scan yesterday whilst waiting for bloods to be taken).


mummytoh1 Fri 25-Mar-11 10:30:20

I had a NT of 2.6mm and was told that that was towards the upper end of normal, as the hospital cut off for 'concern' was 3.5mm (some hospital cut offs are 3mm, I believe).

I also had a private scan at 28 weeks (for reassurance with a senior sonographer as I was concerned about growth issues following bad blood test results) and I asked them, as I was there, what their opinion of a 2.6mm nuchal fold was and they also said it was fine.

I did end up with a high risk result of 1:15 from the nuchal fold test but I was told that that was due to the bad blood test results (PAPP-A specifically) and not the nuchal fold - and I got the all clear from a CVS. I used an online calculator to look at the effects of my nuchal fold on the results (probably the link that's been posted) and sure enough, it was the blood test results as changing the nuchal fold to 1 MoM didn't make my result that much better.

So, I would say that your 2.3mm nuchal fold is absolutely fine. Waiting for any test result is a worry especially when there's a baby at stake, but unless your blood test results are wonky then I'd say you're doing fine.

Claire x

Sparklies Fri 25-Mar-11 20:50:52

MoM stands for Multiples Of the Median - basically on average everybody is 1.0MoM for whatever it is, so it's how far away from "normal" you are for that gestation. The guidelines vary as to what is considered abnormal for each of the factors (NT, bloodwork etc) but generally you want to be close to 1.0MoM. Things usually start being a concern above 2.0MoM or below 0.5MoM but it does depend on what the thing being measured is.

If your bloodwork is bad they usually ring you after 2-3 days, depending on the hospital etc. If they're fine they often don't ring you and just send a letter. My hospital just says "negative" for anything over 1 in 250 I think. But every hospital is different in how things work so go on what they've told you!

Lots of people opt out of the nuchal part of the scan.. and yes, I can see why too, although I remain the sort of person who needs to know all I can.

Thanks Yaya - it's definitely been a long journey.. I'm just so relieved now!

NatzCNL Sat 16-Apr-11 10:31:28


Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now