Nuchal scan - what was your Downs risk for ladies in their 30s?

[Rufus200]

Hi


I'm 34 and mine has come back as 1 in 640. I'm not happy with it. I thought it would be lower then that but apparently all my results were at the top end of normal so it made my risk higher. Baby had nasal bone and nuchal was 2.0mm. I've had Panorma test but it has already failed once and is therefore more likely to fail again and no point in having Harmony as will also fail if Panorma has failed!


If you are in your 30s could you please share what risk of Down's syndrome was after your nuchal scan? I need to know if I'm overreacting or I am higher risk then most women my age. My older friend has just told me her result was 1 in 10,000 which has made me feel worse.

[bestguess23]

At 32 my adjusted risk is 1:4781 but based on age before adjustment was 1:671. NT was 1.3mm.

[bestguess23]

Did they say why the Panorama failed? Was it lack of foetal DNA in your blood or that they couldn't read it? I know the latter sounds out but my dsis had that and later got a result on Harmony at 13 weeks.

[Rufus200]

Panorama failed due to lack of foetal dna

[cheezypeas]

I'm 35 and didn't get any numbers, letter just said it had come back 'low risk'

[Newtobecomingamum]

Mine was 1:11000. I would consider a harmony test x

[Bluepetra]

Harmony test is highly accurate, I researched this before having it as my risk was very high after my Nuchal scan, but after Harmony test it came back as low risk.

[Newtobecomingamum]

Yes there are many many people who have the harmony test and like Blue's experience the results back low risk. The worry you and others have to suffer it's not fair is it. X

[JJXM]

At 31 with DD I had a 1 in 90 risk and had to have an amnio. With this pregnancy it came back a 1 in 38000 risk. If you google maternal age and Down's syndrome it shows the risk based on age. At 34 your age related risk is 1 in 460 and they take the age from when your baby would be born. I know it's worrying and if the harmony test will give you peace of mind and you have the money to pay for it then go for it.

[originalusernamefail]

I was 28 for DS and I'm 30 for DC2 the risk for both came back 1:1000000.

[Quinandthem]

I'm 34 and had combined bloods as they couldn't get measurements.

Mine was 1:600 ish can't remember exact but it still counts as low risk.

The letter did say that my actual ratio was better than the one based on my age so took that as a good sign

[Smitten1981]

1:14 - I had a CVS and all was and still is fine (that was 2 years ago now!) I was 32 at the time.

[bookgirl1982]

I'm 32 and was 1:8000ish at the Fetal Medicine Centre and 1:3200 with the NHS test.

I'd try Harmony/Panorama again if you are worried. I read that about half of retests manage to get a result.

[purplecloud123]

Mine was 1:6993

[LouLouCheese]

Im 38 and mine was 1-379. With my dd it was 1-300.

I wouldn't worry too much as NT good and you're still low risk

[goldenhen]

I'm 34 and I moved hospitals so had to have combined screening twice. 1:780 when tested at 12+5 at one hospital, retested at a second hospital exactly a week later and it was 1:1340. Both considered low-risk. Second hospital was much more high-tech. I'm happy with that.

[MaddieUK]

I'm 32 and my test results were 1:100,000. Nuchal was 2.2mm. Not sure if it's useful comparing yourself to others though - 1:640 is still a very low risk but if you can afford it, you could get a harmony test to put your mind at ease.

[Topsy34]

Min was somthing like 1:640 so still low risk, I'm 34. Its not only the nuchal mm that its guaged on, bmi, papp-a and hcg are all taken into account, my hcg was high, but after a useless consultant, we researched it and as i had a miscarriage a month before my hcg could have been higher than the MOM, or initial twins cause higher hcg

I think the outcome is pretty irrelevant unless you would terminate if you had high risk.

[0ddsocks]

At 32 it was 1:4000ish but by 34 it was 1:1500 ish, even though lower BMI

[carrietwick]

I'm 34 and just had a 1 in 15,000 NT was 2.2. I was amazed as previously at 31 my daughter was NT 1.4 and 1 in 7000. Everyone else I knew in their 30's had much lower numbers between 1 in 400 to 1 in 3000.

[AmethystMoon]

At 36 mine was 1:21

I would have been overjoyed by 1:640

[AmberLav]

At 36, I got 1:580, which is half the standard risk for someone my age. My Nuchal fold was 1.9mm. Got my 20 scan on Friday...

I had roughly 1:1000 at 32 and 1:2000 at 34.

[applecore0317]

Just about to turn 34, I wasn't given numbers either, just told low risk and a fold of 1.5.

[chopsface]

I'm 35 and my risk was 1:7740 which I was very pleased with considering my age. Anything over 1:50 is low risk though so I don't think I would have been too concerned if I'd been given a result in the 100's rather than the 1000's.

[Iammad]

With my 9 month old it was 1/350 at age 34, I'm 35 now and with this baby it is 1/8900.
Yours is still very low risk, I really wouldn't worry about it tbh.

[Junosmum]

My age related risk at 31 and 8 months was 1:700, my NT was 1.3mm and my overall risk came back as 1:27000 though my result was 'truncated' so was actually lower than that.