Did you mc a child after AMNIO or CVS and are willing to share your experience?

[Glimmer]

I am contemplating at which risk I should opt for invasive antenatal testing like CVS or amnio. It comes down to weighting the risk due to being uncertain (I would want to know even if I carry to term) against the risk of miscarriage. I know the statistics but was wondering if anybody would be willing to share their or their closes friends story about mc after invasive tests. Would the do it again? Was it likely caused by an inexperienced doctor or just chance? I hope this is not too painful.

My sister in law had a cvs and miscarried a few days later
She bitterly regrets it especially as the results came back clear.

I had 3 CVS's with my pregancies and no 2 was a bit of a botched job since they had to do it twice due to an inexperienced doc who rushed out of the room to get a professor.
I had bleeding the next day and went to my GP who referred me for a scan with a card saying viable feotus(sp)? Everthing was OK but it scared me to death.

Good luck with whatever you decide. The CVS was for me due to the early knowing of the results.

Good Luck with whatever you decide to do x
i had a CVS with ds and luckily it was all o.k but with this pg because we had already loss one if the result for down-syndrome ( for example) had come back high i dont think we would have had the test and gone on as normal as the result would have made no difference!

I didnt even have an AFP test fpr any of my 3 kids, as I knew that it would make no difference to the outcome, `i would not have had a termination, and with a risk of 1% for amnio nad 2% for CVS, the risk was higher for losing a child with no problems than fore a fase positive.

My MIL has a good friend who almost lost her youngest son after amnio - she was in bed for most of the rest of the pregnancy after she had the test.

Whatever you decide is right for you. But it would have had to be a VERY high risk for me to go through with it.

Thank you very much for your replies. My risks came back low, so that I will not have any further tests. But I was also interested from a more general perspective, since I would like to understand better to which degree the quoted risks reflect the actual risks, depending on having a good or bad surgeon.

My history is that I had an incomplete ERPC, which is quoted with a 5% risk and then a cervical stenosis after the 2nd ERPC which has a risk of 1:10000. So the chances of having an incomplete ERPC and a cervical stenosis are 1:500 000 which means it is 5000 more likely that I will have a child with congenital birth problems than the events that already ahppened to me. I know that my reasoning is a little twisted and that the events are independent, but I wonder if my problems were the results of bad surgery rather than bad luck iykwim.