Is 1:1600 low enough as a Downs risk, or would you have Harmony as well?

[hm32]

I know it's nowhere near high risk, but last time I had 1:9000 so it seems a lot higher to me! I also know it's no guarantee of having a non-Downs baby, just a risk factor. I'm over 35 now, and from what I could read, a normal blood serum multiplies the age risk by 4, which this is over, so bloods must have been normal and NT smallish (1.3). Is 1:1600 less of a risk at 35 (because it's mostly composed of maternal age risk) than it would be at a younger age where NT/blood would have shown markers to give that sort of number?

Its very low! Most people opt for harmony at 1/150-1/250! :)

It's not a non downs baby it is a baby with Down's syndrome.

I think mine was 1/500 ..I worried a bit about that as I heard people getting thousands...I wouldn't be worried with your results

I had 1/771. I didn't give it another thought.. My DH worked it out as a percentage and it was less than 0.01% chance (IIRC..) of having a baby with downs syndrome. I would however be more careful about how you go about labelling a baby who has downs syndrome.

I had 1 in 420 at age 33.

I worked out the risk of either me or dh dying over the next 6 months was about 1 in 410 (I'm an actuary) and got on with my life.

It's very low! It's a 0.0006% risk. I'd be very happy with that!

Would you bet on a horse with those odds?

Your post is really horribly and insensitively written. Just fyi.

The reason it is 'higher' than last time is because of your age. So actually 1 in 1600 is very very very low for your age group.

Statistically, for every 1600 babies you have 1 would have DS.

Fuckeroo could you please elaborate? I've not seen anything insensitive, nor horrible.
FYI - Down's isn't just about appearance, or learning disabilities, etc., but about incredibly serious internal organ (including cardiac) problems. Discussing the matter doesn't deserve an attack.

im 27, my first pregnancy my result(aged 21) was 1 in 12000, my second(aged 24) was 1 in 17000. This pregnancy our result was 1 in 240!

To say we are or were a little concerned would be a huge understatement. for my age it should be a lot higher so im still now worried sick as to why its so high risk compared to my other 2 results. Nifty is only 99% accurate so even if that result came back as negative I would still worry so we chose not to do any further tests. we only have a 0.4% chance which when you say it that way is pretty good odds.

It will be what it will be!

Agree with Fuckeroo. Title and post is insensitive, as is the use of the term non- Downs baby.

I had 1:1000 as my 'line'. Anything wider than that and i was happy to leave it at that. I ended up 1: 64,000. But if i'd been 1:1600 i would have been happy with that too!

Some say that unless it's a greater risk than that which is carried with your age (which in your case is probably something around 1:200?) then there's no need to do further testing. it is SUCH a personal thing though!! and to be honest, i was so stressed about it all for a full month, that i think next time i will go straight for the Harmony.

I had a 1:10 risk with my last pregnancy which as you can imagine was stressful- but after a cvs we got the all clear.

It's a very low risk for someone aged 35+.

(Why are people offended on this post???)

It is a low risk but it is still a risk. Of 9000 women in your position one of them will have a baby with Down's syndrome. If you want certainty you have to have further tests.

I've just said why its offensive.

I'd count that as low risk. Mine was 1:940 and I'm 39, based mostly on my age as NT was low and bloods fine. That was a significant improvement on my age related risk. I would not go for CVS/ amino unless my risk of trisomys was higher than the MC risk from the tests of 1-2%. No risk involved in Harmony but it's a lot of money and it's still only 99% accurate, you can't be absolutely sure without an invasive test. I'd be happy with your result and enjoy the rest of the pregnancy.

As the parent of a child who has a disability I'm much more aware than i used to be of the language people use when discussing disabilities generally. People are not their disability, so my daughter was not 'a cp baby', it is more appropriate to say a person 'has Cerebral Palsy' or 'a baby who has Downs Syndrome'. It's just about disability awareness and equality.

I think the term 'risk' is the offensive part. There is a chance not a risk (risk being negative).

And "all clear" being used is insensitive.

Hi just wanted to say I would give anything for your risk factors! Im 34 and my risk is 1 in 75 and we still havent opted for an animo. Were taking the risk as the risk of miscarriage is the same, I would much rather risk a ds baby than a miscarriage! !

Down's isn't just about appearance, or learning disabilities, etc., but about incredibly serious internal organ (including cardiac) problems

It is also about a child, not a set of problems and disabilities, hence why referring to a 'non-Downs baby' or 'downs baby' is offensive.

I know this post is years after original message, but just had to say (in case anyone reads this thread in future) -- OMG give the girl a break! Am sure she didn't meant to offend anyone.... shouldn't we be supporting each other, not jumping down each other's throats about terminology. There was nothing that offensive in the original post. And if it really upset you, there are a lot nicer ways to address it Fuckeroo and Plumbear....mental!!