nuchal scan results??

[koonelly]

hi, i had a nuchal scan last week and had measurement of 1.9mm is this good or bad? all you get told is the risk factor which in my case is high cos of age. initially 1 in 50 reduced to 1 in 167 after scan. my hospital don't do combined test so have to wait till 16 weeks for triple test. At time of scan i was so releived baby stll there (had 3 m/c's)that i didn't think to discuss result. Sonographer thought i was going to be seeing someone else to discuss but not got appointment til 16 weeks. I wouldn't risk having an amnio or cvs i don't think, but it is praying on my mind and want to get it in perpective. Can anyone help?

I think 1/50 reduced to 1/167 is very good. The risk of problems from amnio or cvs is 1/100, so I think you're doing fine.

1/167 is 0.598%, which is 99.401% chance the baby is fine. Worrying is understandable, but your odds are very very good.

I'd say that was pretty good - 3 times less likely than the statistical calculation based on your age.

when put as percentage it sounds so much more reassuring, hadn't thought about it that way

Koonelly, the leaflet I had from my hospital said that the measeurement would normally be above 3.5mm to cause worry, so 1.9mm is well below. If you are able to get to London and are able to spend the money, the Fetal Medicine Centre (google on name) offers a very thorough nuchal scan and blood test which can give a much more accurate picture. See the "Due in August" thread for Beachyhead's recent experience. Best of luck.

Went to the fetal medicine centre for nuchal and CVS and everything went very well. They know what to do and they do it well.
However, your odds are pretty good...I would mostly rely on the visual result rather than blood test (my blood test increased my risk but they were unable to give me an explanation...) so I wouldn't recommend CVS or amnio at this stage.

1.9 is a very good result

1.9 is a very good result

On Monday my no 3 baby's nuchal fold measurement was 1mm and my risk was therefore 1:2100 approx. Previously I had 1:3200 and 1:3500 so was a little concerned about the difference but presume that is probably because I am a year older?

My result was much like yours (about 1 in 600), I was 39 at the time, 40 by time ds was born. We agonised over further tests and opted for amnio, I just had to to do it for peace of mind and was willing to take risk.

It is really difficult, isn't it? I think sometimes you worry more when you are given the risk factor. Perhaps it would be better just to give you the measurement and tell you whether it is around average or not.....

I understood from my sonographer that the fold measurement had to be looked at in relation to the length of the baby. ds2 nuchal fold thickness was 2mm with a length of 6cm-he was fine. This pregnancy bean also has a nuchal thickness of 2mm with a length of 6.9cm. Therefore a lower risk than ds2. 1.9mm is smaller than either my last two beans.

I was given a print out of my results, complete with charts showing the 'normal' range in relation to length. I'll have look later and see if Ican dig out the reference.

Yep. nuchal thickness does vary by crown rump length / age of fetus. If you search my old posts, several times I've linked to a pdf on the Fetal Medicine Centre's site. p. 28 has a graph of thickness by CRL (all in mm).

koonelly, if you wanted further info, a consultant at your hospital, or the Fetal Medicine Centre in London could arrange what is called a Combined Test (latest this can be done is 13+6). This blood test, taken at the same time as a nuchal fold reading (so you may be rescanned) measures two chemicals in your blood and allows for further variables to decrease / increase your risk profile. This typically costs £130, and one might argue that it would only be worth it if you might consider termination or if you wanted advance knowledge of any problems.

HTH.

Thanks all, I spoke to midwife eventally midweek and we have decided not to have any invasive tests. Looking around at info on the net i decided my results weren't too bad after all! Found out all changed in my area since last child 4 yeara ago and that now that the NT scan is done no blood tests are offered as they are apparantly less accurate! Also told by midwife no scans til 21 weeks as baby's heart is better developed then and can get a better picture of things! Must admit it seems like ages away but she did say anytime needed reassurance she would check heartbeat at weekly clinic for me..which might help the wait. Just wondered if this is all usual procedure in other areas as i hoped that cos of my age and m/c history might get a little more TLC!

From what I've read the (correct) blood tests make the NT risk profile more accurate, boosting detection rates to 90 odd percent at a 5% false positive rate.

The Fetal Medicine Centre is world class and this is one of their areas of speciality. I think there must be some misunderstanding or misinformation.

Hell0 - I've just had my first NT scan at 12 weeks (not confirmed date) and measurements ranged between 2.1mm and 3mm over the ten or so taken. I am 38 and was told that this increases my risk factor to 1 in 11. There is however a nasal bone present and normal bone length measurements, so i'm not sure what to think. i've been searching on-line for some indication of what is 'normal' but can't seem to find out enough information that combines all the factors. Can anyone offer any advice?

Hi

Sorry to barge in but I wondered if anyone can explain a bit about the NF test. My first appointment with the MW is the day after my scan and so I have no clue really what's going to happen. They did send a leaflet with the letter but it didn't say much and nothing about blood tests. At 35 I don't know if I should be more worried about it?

Sorry to be so clueless - I just feel a bit abandoned!

Sarah

hi ampersand - I had my nuchal a few weeks ago and the nuchal measurement was 3.5mm. Combined with my age (34) this gave me a risk of 1 in 6, despite the fact that the nasal bone was present and heart was normal.

I think that NHS standard is that anything below 1 in 250 (or perhaps 300 - not totaly sure) is considered high risk and worthy of further investigation via CVS or amnio. I had a CVS and am grateful to say that the results were normal. Nevertheless it was an anxious few days.

What you decide to do will really depend on how you feel. If you don't feel the need to know whether or not your baby is chromosomally 'normal' and if you know you would keep the baby no matter what, then you may not feel a CVS, which carries with it a small risk of miscarriage, is warranted. On the other hand, it may be good to know so that you are prepared for any special needs your child might have. At the end of the day though, the scan is not a definitive diagnostic tool - all it can do is give you some idea of the 'risk. But even a 1 in 4500 risk can still mean that you are that 'one'.

For me, I needed to know for sure whether my baby was 'normal', although to be honest I'm not sure what I would have done with a less favourable outcome. I'm sure that your baby is absolutely fine, but a CVS may be worthwhile if you are worried. Sitting on the internet trying to figure out what is 'normal' will just do your head in. Avoid at all costs!

best wishes to you

Thanks Stargazin - you're absolutely right. As this is my first child, i'm also experiencing my first case of confronting the what's 'normal' and dealing with my idealisms. I think i've decided to have amnio. i live in a small town in NZ so am sceptical of the expertise we have here, however amnio has had a 100% success rate in the history of it being performed. it sounds totally invasive but i'll just have to deal with that and the consequences. it's a big learning curve from conception - thanks

Just as an addition to this - a measurement of 3mm at the nuchal is still considered normal - anything above that and they will start to look at other factors. But, I guess the risk ratings come fro adding together many different things.