Good nuchal but bad bloods

[yumymumy]

Hi. I am 39, 15 weeks pregnant with no 4 (I have 3 lovely little boys). I decided with this pregnancy to have a nuchal scan with bloods done. Nuchal scan was fine, measurement of 1.8, and all looked well at scan so I was delighted. Went for bloods last Friday and I got a call 2 days ago to say I had come back screen positive with odds for downs of 1:126. I?m meeting my gynae on Monday to talk through the results and discuss whether I go on to have amnio.
Just wondering whether anyone has had a good nuchal but poor bloods and what the outcome was? Which is more reliable? Also, how serious a result is 1:126 ? could I have been given a 1:2 result?
Any words of wisdom much appreciated.
Thanks

If it's any reassurance, apparently some health authorities have scrapped the blood tests because they throw up so many false positives.

at your age, aren't those odds pretty normal?

Personally, I don't think it is a particularly useful predicition, anyway - chances are your baby will be one of the 99.5 % who doesn't have DS, but of course someone will be the 1 in 126, or the 1 in 1000 for that matter.

I'm 43 and had nuchal of 1.5mm followed by blood test results of 1:24, much worse than the usual risk for my age. I was told by other MNetters afterwards that the blood tests at this age just aren't worth it. As geekgirl says, even with really good odds you could still be the 1.

I went on to have an amnio, just because my DH was adamant that he couldn't cope with a child with DS at this stage in our lives. Everything came back clear but it was an anxious 2 weeks following the procedure.

I've had this for all 3 of mine. All about 1:30 because of biochemistry result. Something to do with a hormone level that can kick off in pg so I was told. Had CVS for all 3 (caused anxiety 1st time even though I only had to wait 2 days for result) and outcome negative for all 3. If they can see the nasal bone then it's unlikely to be DS. 1:126 doesn't sound too bad to me (though I'm no expert) aged 39. I had 1:30 aged 33 which is apparently quite bad but anyway the outcome was good.
Good luck

Thanks very much for all the replies girls. I will see what gynae says on Monday.

I had a risk factor from the nuchal transucency thing of 1:100. I was strongly pushed towards more invasive tests, until my very pragmatic then 81 year old mother said very robustly "well, darling, I wouldn't back a horse on those odds" and I realized that 1:100 means I had 99 chances out of a 100of having a perfectly healthy baby. Which we did. We worried, of course, but not as much as we would have done if we had listened only to the professionals interpretation of the figures.

My consultant said do one or the other not both as it often throws up comflicing results.
Not sure what to advise though, sorry.

I am in the same situation yummymumy, am 35 on pregnancy no 3, healthy dd and ds, I am now 16 weeks and did nuchal scan here at 12 weeks which showed 1mm and blood tests 2 weeks later (sent to France), which have come back 1:10. The doc is pushing for an amnio but I am in Cameroon where they can't do it, so it would mean an trip back home, on my own etc. So have opted for another scan next week with a different doc and feel that I don't want to rush into any invasive tests. It's worrying but it has helped me to read the replies to your post. Good luck on Monday, thinking of you.