What was your NT measurement?

[GillyBillyWilly]

Just that really...!

I'm sat in paddington station waiting for a train and thinking about the scan I has yesterday (12 week scan)

All was well and I am now starting to feel more excited about the pregnancy!

My NT measurement was 1.3mm which the sonographer said was totally fine... But I've read of people getting such different measurements... So just wondering what the current mumsnet average is!

They took blood too but I guess it will be a week or so before I get the blood results.

Tell me yours!

[SicknSpan]

Hi Gilly. 1.7mm here. Sonographer said under 3.5mm was low risk but that of course this would need to be coupled with the bloods and other risk factors.

[ChicaMomma]

1.3 is brilliant!! i thought the recommendation was to be under 2.5, is it actually 3.5 Sick?

I'm not getting the bloods done as i've heard they overstate abnormalities. IF my NT reading is high then i'll just get the CVS done- which is more definitive, whereas the bloods are a bit confusing.

[PrincessKitKat]

Our NT was 2.1 and risk factor came out as 1 in 3000 (I'm 35 if that makes a difference).

We were told 3.5 is the cut off too.

[bundaberg]

hmm i seem to recall ds3's was about 1,7 or 1,9....

didn't get one with this baby

[dats]

1.7mm & bloods gave risk of 1:1668 - and I'm 41, so I was happy with that. That was at 12w3d.

I don't think there really is an 'average' of nuchal measurement, as it's often hard to measure something so small accurately, plus as it grows with baby, a few days either side would make a diff.

Either way, 1.3mm sounds like a promising start

[GillyBillyWilly]

Yes I was obviously happy with 1.3.... But really I'm just intrigued as to what other people's are! I've read some people having measurements of 0.4mm!
I know we are talking about TINY amounts in reality but they do seem to vary quite a lot.
Interesting!

[Only1scoop]

12+6 1.40 mm adjusted risk 1.1814

13+2 nhs scan 1.9mm

[Cannotbelieveit]

DS1 NT 2.0 and bloods gave 1:20000 (scan at 12w6d) born march this year

Currently pregnant with DS2 NT 1.5 and bloods have given 1:64000 (scan at 11w6d) due April next year.

[ChicaMomma]

1: 64k Cannotbelieve, you'd have to be happy with those stats :)

So looking forward to having this done in 10 days, a bit up the walls about it at the moment. I'm glad i read it was 3.5 and not 2.5- if i'd gotten a reading of 2.6 i would have had a stroke on the spot otherwise :)

That's interesting that yours increased Only1scoop in the 3 days- makes sense i suppose, 3 days is a lot of growing for our little beans!

[Cannotbelieveit]

Very happy!! If it were just my age the consultant said it's 1:900andsomething

[Cannotbelieveit]

Was 29 with DS1 and 30 with DS2 now

[Only1scoop]

Chicca momma....I thought exactly the same....I havn't had the blood work through from nhs so will be interesting to see the figure.

What shocked me was the massive difference from having my dd ....I was 36 then and the risk 1:13500 =low risk
This time being over 40 what a massive difference....still classed as low risk though....thankfully

[CrispyFB]

I've had a 2.1, 1.6, 2.2 and a 2.7. All done around 12 weeks. All my babies have typical chromosomes. I'm 37 now, pregnant with DC4, and there's 2-3 years between each baby.

I only had bloodwork with the latter two - the bloodwork was horrific and well outside the normal range, and I screened positive (very high risk with the latter) both times. With normal bloodwork I probably would not have.

[Londongirl84]

1.3mm and with bloods I was 1:10,000

[ThePowerOfCake]

1.5mm, bloods came back as 1:12000.

[wispaxmas]

1.1mm! Such a relief!

[TobyLerone]

Hi, Gilly! Glad your scan went well :)

Mine this time was 1.7mm. Can't remember what all the stats were, but my overall adjusted risk was 1:350-something, which I'm happy with. I'm 36.

[Writerwannabe83]

My measurement was 1.3mm and my risk came back as 1:90'000

[ChicaMomma]

Crispy i've actually decided to go nuchal measurment ONLY, as i've heard from friends who are medics that the bloods can overstate abnormalities more often than not. Sounds like they certainly did in your case.

Really hoping for a 1.something reading now! Wont care what it measures as long as there's a 1 in front of it.

[CrispyFB]

ChicaMomma - Technically they're supposed to be just as indicative, but anecdotally I am always hearing stories of bad bloodwork being fine far more so than bad NTs!

Having said that, there is actually a use for the bloodwork beyond NT screening. It can highlight possible issues with the placenta (e.g. low PAPP-A) which could cause growth issues later on. Generally people with low PAPP-A or very high bHCG, which I've had both of, get a growth scan at 28-34 weeks to check all is okay. A real life friend had low PAPP-A and her growth scan did reveal IUGR and he ended up being delivered, safely, at 34 weeks.

So it's something to bear in mind!

[LoveWine]

My measurement was 1.5mm, blood results indicated 1:33,0000. Quite pleased with this.

[Beckamaw]

On the flip: mine was 3.5 at 38. With bloods, risk was calculated as 1:12.
Amnio followed, and before getting results they asked me to keep Friday morning free 'to discuss termination options'.
Amnio clear. Detailed amnio results clear.
Sent to Oxford for heart scan due to suspected problems.
Heart scan clear.

She's perfect. An absolute joy!
Don't worry too much if your NT is a scary number. There are lots of positive outcomes, but they scare you half to death.

[pumpkinsweetie]

Mine was 2.5 so good there, but combined with my bloods, 1:155, i'm 29 so not so good but got my results to late to have a diagnosis. Just keeping my fx baby is ok (im now 33 weeks) and i will love her none the less

[MetellaEstMater]

1.6mm so 1:2899, which is mostly due to being an geriatric mother or whatever they call it...

[Writerwannabe83]

Sorrymetella but your comment about being a geriatric mother made me laugh

I was having this discussion with my nan the other day actually, about the age range in which people are having babies these days, especially their first and how it is much more the 'norm' now for women to be mid 30's and over. She was having a moan about a woman on the TV you see who had 2 babies by the age of 24.....so I casually reminded her she was much younger than that when she and my grandad had had their children and my mother had also been that age when she'd had me and my sister. My sister was 23 when she had her first and that seems so, so young to me!! Ten years ago though that was probably the typical age. It is mad how times change I'm sure you're not a geriatric mom, lol!!