Confused about periods after MC

(13 Posts)
petra27 Fri 28-Jun-13 00:03:48

Getting over my 4th MC but a bit worried about AF.

(I passed products naturally but had a scan afterwards and all seemed OK.)

After the first 3 MC's my first period was always a few days late and heavier than usual, which seems to reset things and then I slot back into my usual 28 day rhythm.

This time I had the first period after my miscarriage a few days late, as I would expect, but I would therefore have been due an AF 28 days later based on how things usually go.

I am on CD 35. I have been feeling like I'm going to get AF for over a week but still doesn't come. This means this one is later than the one directly following the actual MC.

My questions really are
1. is this normal, has anyone else had this
2. Should I go for a scan, but surely if I had one after the MC it should be OK? (I got a letter from a doc saying the type of chromosomal abnormality the baby had is associated with something else (can't remember) some molar type thing, and to make sure i mention it when I have my first scan in the next PG. Could this be anything to do with it?
3. I POAS on day 27 and day 31 and got BFNs so I know it probably isn't that unless I ovulated incredibly late but this doesn't seem very likely...

Irishmammybread Fri 28-Jun-13 01:14:24

Sorry to hear about your miscarriages, it's a devastating experience to go through.
I've had four miscarriages as well,all managed naturally.
I normally have a 28 day cycle too,after my first miscarriage which was at 11 wks it was 35 days.
We tried the next cycle and I conceived but miscarried at 6 weeks.
By this stage I was charting my temperature so I know I ovulated on d14 after and I conceived again straight away.If I hadn't I presume my cyle would have been the usual length.
Despite seeing a healthy heartbeat and good growth we discovered at 10 weeks the baby had died a few days previously. I waited to miscarry and this happened at 12 weeks. I ovulated on d23 and AF started on cd 35.
My last miscarriage was at 5.5 weeks and AF came 32 days later.
So I think it's hard to say what's "normal" ,it can vary between miscarriages even for one person.
I would find out more about the chromosomal abnormality,what they've told you sounds a bit vague,especially if there's a suggestion of a molar pregnancy?
Having said that if you ovulated later in your cycle,which is very possible, it could just have been too early for a BFP on cd31.
Let us know how you get on.

fluffandnonsense Fri 28-Jun-13 08:54:39

Did the doc not say anything else about the molar? I'm not hugely up on them but I know they can cause issues in subsequent pregnancies and sometimes need treatment before you try again. They keep your hormones artificially high which may be why you haven't had a period yet. Maybe try a pregnancy test to see if you are still registering hormones? I would ask for more information from EPU regarding the molar. Also there is a molar thread on here if you search for it.

petra27 Fri 28-Jun-13 10:49:07

thanks for the replies.

Just to clarify I have had one period since my MC, it is the second cycle AF that seems to have disappeared, I was expecting the first one to be late, i'm just worried that the second one seems to be later than the first which seems odd to me.

I think I'm secretly getting my hopes up I may be PG because when I read that my hormones might be kept artificially high and that might be delaying a PG I felt sad although this certainly seems like it could be the answer.

This getting your hopes up/ hopes dashed/ trying again/ getting your hopes up cycle is playing with my head a little bit.

At the time of the MC and scans they didn't mention the molar thing, which is why I'm a bit confused, I just got a letter about it so had no one to explain it to me. I don't think it was a molar pg itself.

I've just found the letter and it says 'the cytogenetics of your most recent miscarriage can be associated with what is called molar change, so please mention this when you are scanned in any future pregnancy'.

Does anyone know what this means?

The EPU will not see/scan without a positive urine test on arrival, so I don't think they could help me.

MrsJohnDeere Fri 28-Jun-13 11:24:12

So sorry abut your miscarriages

If its is molar then you absolutely need to have some follow up, and your doctor should refer you ASAP to Charing Cross or Sheffield (depending in where in the country your are). You'll need to have fortnightly blood and urine tests for the next 6 months, or until your hCG has been normal (below 5) for 6 months. They should also advise you not to get pg until you get that 'normal' result.

MrsJohnDeere Fri 28-Jun-13 11:24:39

Sorry, lots of typos there... blush

MrsJohnDeere Fri 28-Jun-13 11:25:42

Fwiw, whoever sent you that letter (hospital?) doesn't seem very clued up on molar pregnancies. The wording is very odd.....

petra27 Fri 28-Jun-13 12:24:23

Hi I've just tested again, CD 36, am definitely not pregnant.
Mrs John Deere, thanks for that. I did think it was kind of strange to just get that letter. I think I'll make an appointment with the GP and ask if I should be having follow ups. (I'm in London, btw).

MrsJohnDeere Fri 28-Jun-13 12:55:24

I strongly recommend you check out the Charing Cross Molar Pregnancy site before you see your GP. All the info you need is there.

Unfortunately most GPs (and even a lot of gynaecologists) don't know much about it because they so rarely see it.

Don't worry about all the references to cancer etc - it is very, very rare and if you are getting negatives on pregnancy tests that is a by good sign already.

petra27 Fri 28-Jun-13 13:16:51

Hi I've just looked at the site, really appreciate the link.

From what i understood a molar is a group of cells without a baby-

Whereas I had a HB at the last scan at 7+4 before I m/c at which point they thought it was a viable PG. (Mc'd at 7+6 two days later) so I didn't understand why I could have anything to do with molar,

But the site talks about partial molars and says " In a partial molar pregnancy there can be a foetus visible on an early ultrasound, but it is always abnormal and can not develop into a baby. After the evacuation, most partial molar pregnancies do not require any additional treatment as in more than 99% any of the residual cells just fade away over the next month or two.

So perhaps if I've had a partial this is why they are leaving me to it?

But then I've found some more info on a letter they sent to the gp and cc'd me that says 'the cytogentics of the fourth pregnancy show a triploid condition with three copies of one chromosome. This is not related to the genetic abnormality detected in the third miscarriage'

So if a partial molar has three sets of all chromosomes and I only had three sets of one chromosome does this mean it isn't a partial molar??

But then what does 'associated with molar change' mean if not?

I'm just baffled now. Maybe i'll have a read of the molar thread and see if that sheds any light. I'm beginning to think I should be getting a bit worried about this.

MrsJohnDeere Fri 28-Jun-13 13:36:30

It sounds like it could be partial mole to me (which is what I had). With that you have what looks like a 'normal' viable foetus but it can never (or only rarely) develop into a live birth. With a complete mole you don't get anything that looks like a foetus.

I'm not very clued up about the chromosome side of things. My gynaecologist explained it to me but it kind of went in one ear and out the other as I was too much focussed on the 'OMG I might die of cancer' thoughts!

I genuinely don't think you should worry. Your hCG levels sound great, so even if you do have a partial mole everything is heading in the right direction. FWiw, Charing Cross typically only need to provide chemo for one partial mole person per year, and this year it was me!

I would chase it up with the docs and ask questions - perhaps poke them in the direction of the Charing Cross website - and would hold off on TTCing until you get some answers. If you did get pg it would be impossible to tell if your hCG was rising because of the pregnancy or because of some underlying molar growth that would need treatment.

petra27 Fri 28-Jun-13 13:52:42

Oh MrsJohnDeere, you are such a kind lady.

I'm so sorry that you are speaking from personal experience and that you had to have chemo. thanks

I hope you have recovered now and it is all behind you.

I will follow it up now as per your advice. I'm going to go to the GP and take the Charing X info printed out with me just in case. (As I have had 4 straight MC's now and one late loss they expect me to be a basket case anyway so I think they'd take it in their stride..if I went in with blue face paint on I don't think they'd bat an eyelid...

I take on board what you say about it being a good thing to have low HCG at the moment, I'd hate to have got excited about a BFP and then it turns out to be a complication instead. I'm a bit shock that they didn't tell me not to TTC but I won't now I know this.

Thanks for all your help and thinking of me when you've had such a hard time yourself. x

MrsJohnDeere Fri 28-Jun-13 14:31:17

No problem, and good luck flowers

Come back and let us know how you get on (and try not to worry).

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