What was YOUR nuchal fold result/risk factor??

[Bea06]

Mine was 1: 3,000 and I was 31 at the time.

[Emilyjane]

NT measurement was 3.5 so that alone put me at a risk of 1:71. Combined with my blood tests and age put me at a risk of 1 in approx 500. This number was too worrying for me and DP so we have booked an amneo for 7th of May.

[Jac]

Emilyjane - what a worrying time for you. Hope the news is good on 7th May, let us know how it goes.

Katones - did you have the amnio? How did it go?

[Emilyjane]

Thanks Jac

[1MOREPLZ]

Hey Jac,

yep sure did have the amnio (most awful thing ever!!!!) am now waiting til next monday (5th) for our results......

[Emilyjane]

For anyone who would like to see what a increased NT measurement looks like -
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s...rasound4NT.jpg

[1MOREPLZ]

EmilyJane how did your amnio go??? when are you due to get results???

[Leemar]

Hi, I was 34 and was 1:35, Scan was good but bloods were bad so I had amino done and went onto have a healthy baby.
I hope everything is fine for you.

[1MOREPLZ]

Hi Leemar,

i have since received my results from the amnio i had. I am 30 U/S was fine it was the bloods that came back 1:171 risk for trisomy 13/18 but amnio results came back all clear & i am having a little boy

[Leemar]

Congratulations I am so happy everything is fine and a little boy too

[[M]umma[M]ia]

um mine came back 1:60900...and 1:800

im very happy with this but my bloods put me at a maternal age of 26 why is this??? seems i have bad blood....

[Kitt3n]

1/206.

CVS was all clear

[Chippy]

I'm confused by those super high numbers. On the little graph I have, no one goes above 1:6000.

My T21 results were 1:4730 which gives me a maternal age of less than 15. I'm 29. I don't know what the others are but I'm assuming they're good 'cos they would have told me otherwise.

[Mumof2Girls]

For Jen (when I was 30) I had a result of 1:217 and for this bub (I'm 33 now) I had a risk of 1:136. Both scans were fine but it was the bloods that went crazy. The genetic counsellor said that some women have a bit of a different blood chemistry which give the high risk results. Anyway, had a CVS with Jen and she was perfectly fine and had an amnio with this one and he's perfectly fine too

[HotI]

Not sure how high it goes up to but anything under 1/300 is considered high risk and further investigations should be carried out.

It is your choice whether to have a NT measurement +/- maternal blood tests, just as it your choice to have or not have further testing. Doctors may encourage you to have further testing but it should be your decision and at a time when you are comfortable with it.

The 1/300 risk being "high risk" is based on the predicted incidence of miscarriage following the next round of testing (CVS or amnio) and cost-benefit calculations. There is no medical reason why this 1/300 figure is used.

Like this thread shows, one risk value can be interpreted in different ways by different people based on their circumstances. To some the value will seem really high, to others the same value will be low.

[*Efjay*]

mine was 1 in 3000 from the scan then bloods put me at 1 in 16,000

[ShootingStar]

This pregnancy was 1:16606 and am 28.. didnt do the test with DS.

[Jac]

I'm confused by those super high numbers. On the little graph I have, no one goes above 1:6000.

My T21 results were 1:4730 which gives me a maternal age of less than 15. I'm 29. I don't know what the others are but I'm assuming they're good 'cos they would have told me otherwise.

How unusual (your graph that is). Results from both of my pregnancies have been well above 1 in 6000 (over the age of 30 each time) so they most certainly can go above the upper limit on your graph. Weird ha? I'm pretty sure that I was not given a maternal age of less that 15 either, despite have a greater ratio than yours. Can't explain it though?

ETA : Unless your graph give scan results only (not combined results from blood test AND scan)?