IVF pregnancy 38 weeks, early induction for no real reason?!

[PorkPieandPickle]

Hoping for anyone with knowledge of IVF pregnancies to advise me?
I am currently 38+6 and have had 'consultant led care' throughout (because of ivf/ohss issue) but have had nothing wrong and fairly 'textbook' pregnancy.

Had horrible consultant yesterday, she made me feel stupid, started talking about induction- and when I queried her as still pre-term, she said they don't let IVF pregnancies go overdue ?? she was saying like 'someone must have already mentioned this' and 'why do I think I'm having consultant led care' (?!)

She was quite rude IMO. Made me feel like a failure she actually said 'your body didn't naturally produce a pregnancy, so we can't rely on it to naturally go into labour' What????! Did they inject a placenta into me?! No, my body naturally grew one, like it grew my baby!!!!

She wanted to give me a sweep while I was there yesterday, and I declined it and said I wanted to give things a chance to start naturally. She said a sweep was natural, but snottily said i had the right to decline if i wasn't prepared... I still declined- I wasn't mentally prepared for it, and had driven myself there without DH etc.

Anyway, the upshot is, I have to have a sweep next Wednesday, 4th (at 39+5) And if that doesn't work within 48 hours, they will want to admit and induce me.

I feel totally overwhelmed by them suddenly moving the goal posts?! The early induction substantially reduces chances of the natural water birth I was hoping for... Not the end of the world, I know, but I would have thought this should be mentioned before now?!

Sorry for long post, any experience anyone please? Any other IVF-ers been told similar?

Well then porkpie it makes even less sense then doesn't it! Poor you and your loopy consultant . Good luck this time round euro. I'm ok thank you- it took us 3 x FETs, 9 embryos and a shed load of tests but we finally got there and our baby girl is due next Wednesday. I often think of you, Joyce and the other 10 plussers. I really hope 2014 is your year. X

PorkPie please don't be bullied into doing anything you aren't comfortable with. I am on my 2nd IVF pregnancy (DD is 3.5) and in my first one, I had consultant led care as I was 'high risk' which they said that they would reduce back to normal risk if all was OK with the 20w scan. As it happens I ended up with a low-lying placenta so was kept at high risk, but I vividly remember the consultant trying to get me to go for induction at 37 weeks - but when DH and I questioned him, he couldn't really give us any real concrete reason/evidence for his suggestion. He even said that an induction before the body is ready has a much higher intervention rate eg CSection, forceps etc.

In the end I was induced at 39w due to bleeding and within a couple of hours they were pushing for more and more interventions (the drip) to move things along faster - even though I had strong contractions as soon as they'd broken my waters. I deeply regret letting them push me into things that, with a rational head (ie not high on gas and air) I wouldn't have gone along with. I ended up not getting the birth I wanted and it wasn't a nice experience. I didn't really realise that I could refuse them!

For this pg, I am living in a different area and they said that they don't categorise women as high risk for IVF pregnancies as there is simply no reason to. I am however having consultant appointments due to the fact I am 40, but as all was well with the 20w scan yesterday, I am going to push to go back to midwife-led care so I can deliver in the birthing unit. There is no way I am going to be pushed to go for an induction or any other intervention that I don't need this time - you live and learn...

I would definitely ask for a second opinion and know in your mind what you want. Good luck!

i had an IVF pregnancy and at no point was it ever suggested that i should be induced before 40 weeks.

I think the consultant has demonstrated her ignorance by suggesting that you need to be induced because" your body didn't get pregnant naturally so cannot be relied upon to go into labour naturally" - she had completely overlooked the fact that it could have been (and indeed was) a male fertility issue.

unless the offer compelling, evidence (ie beyond the fact you had IVF) then I'd be refusing early induction.

sorry you've had such a poor experience, and good luck!

Oh wow - you are very nearly there, MrsHY. Good luck!

OP - I just had DD who was conceived via IVF (second child, DD conceived naturally). IVF was not cited as a risk factor in my assessment and in fact a MW said to me that the only way it was relevant once I conceived was that they knew accurately the date of conception. I went on to have a VBAC at home at 40+5, which was wonderful. I saw a consultant when I went past 40 weeks to discuss induction and her only concern was that I had had an EMCS before for failure to progress, not the IVF nor my age (I was 39 when I conceived but 40 when I gave birth). She gave me the option to choose what type of induction I preferred and the date (eg 7, 10, 12 or 14 days past EDD). She also made it clear that I could refuse induction although after 42 weeks they would want me to be monitored daily. I was also offered an ELCS because I had had a CS previously. Luckily I didn't need to make those decisions.

However, a friend of mine who is also over 40 and has an IVF pregnancy and is at the same hospital has been put under a lot of pressure to be induced by 40 weeks "at the latest" for these very reasons. I can't believe how inconsistent the treatment pathways are for induction. Like the others I also can't fathom why IVF would be a factor in advocating induction before 42 weeks, even the latest research says that a natural pregnancy varies from 37-42 weeks.

The remark by the registrar about your body not being trusted to go into labour naturally is astonishing. She doesn't sound like she knows what she's talking about at all. As the other posters have said, after all the heartache that precedes IVF the last thing you need is to be told you are somehow inadequate when you are clearly are not.

I've just done a quick search and not found any NICE guidelines on IVF as a factor in induction and mode of delivery and can't find anything, which indicates there isn't actually any evidence to support what the registrar was saying.

Congratulations and good luck!

(PS hi to mrs and euro - euro good luck on this round! )

I went 40 + 12 with an Ivf pregnancy they only attempted induction for my high bp or would have been longer.

I remember asking at a consultant appt early on why Ivf automatically made me high risk .. She shrugged and said just that guidelines hasn't caught up with the times.

I went 40 + 13 with my IVF daughter. Eventually I was induced after spending the whole pregnancy being told she would come early. My body paid no attention to the induction and I went into labour in my own time.

If I were you I'd get a second opinion.

Where I am women who have IVF just follow the nirmal route for pg. MW for single baby, consultant led for twins.

I know someone who has been offered an induction after IVF BUT it's because she had a cs before and they are worried the same will happen again.
They are talking about inducing around her due date NOT at 38 weeks.

Why why are they talking about doing a sweep?? This would be in the hope of starting labour. But the cs is because you are likely to have some issues during labour??? If there is any risk associated with labour, then surely you would want to avoid it .

Next time ask to see the CONSULTANT. He/she would the one to carry the procedure anyway. Ask for proper reasons, risks associated with each procedure etc....

Hi all just thought I would update. Saw a different registrar for yesterday's follow up. She was fairly confused by her colleagues previous comment, said that there was no hospital policy of early induction for IVF pregnancies, and she couldn't see a reason in my notes to treat me anything other than normal and do sweep at term&7 induction at term&12.

She said she would get a third opinion from the consultant. Went into consultants office, came back a few minutes later and said that the consultant was in agreement that there were no additional risk factors to my pregnancy, and I didn't need to see them again!!

Madness!! But relieved!! Thanks for the advice everyone.

Ah, v good - that sounds more like it .

Goog luck with the rest of your pregnancy x.

Good luck op. That's good that you were able to see someone who talks sense. I think I would still be tempted to complain about the first registrar because of the comment she made about your body not being relied upon to go into labour, she was talking nonsense and makes you wonder what other rubbish she's spouting to other pregnant women. Also, what would have happened if you had agreed to the sweep at the time?

The only reason I've been told that some consultants don't like you to go over due is because they can be certain of conception date unlike in a non Ivf pregnancy. So 40 weeks really is 40 weeks and there are some risks in some women for going overdue.

Hi. Don't know if anyone will see this, but thought I'd try anyway!

Just wanted to check how anyone who posted here last year whilst pregnant got on in the end. I'm 32 weeks in an IVF pregnancy, 35 years old, and considered low risk. (The only reason I had IVF is because I'm gay - no known fertility problems or difficulties conceiving except that Biology Doesn't Work Like That.) I also moved house and changed trusts at around 26 weeks. So in my old trust, where I had the first half of my maternity care, I was treated as low-risk, totally midwife-led exactly the same as a naturally conceived pregnancy. In the new trust, the policy is to offer induction at 40 weeks on IVF pregnancies. Because of changing area, I've only just been told this.

I've contacted the consultants at the clinic where I had IVF to ask their opinion, and looked at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines, and I'll look at the Royal College of Midwifery guidelines too. It looks like there's some evidence that IVF pregnancies are slightly higher risk, but I can't find anything specifically relating to placental insufficiency and IVF. If anyone else did manage to find anything, please let me know!