littlelemons
New Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi All, I'm feeling very confused and I would really love your take on this. I'm pregnant for the first time, at 41, after doing IVF because both my tubes are blocked and because of my age. At my first scan, at 7 weeks, with my fertility dr, I found out I was pregnant with twins, both of which were slightly small by a day or two but had good strong heartbeats (156 and 146 bpm). That dr only does fertility and he's far from where we live, so I needed to find an ob/gyn nearby.
I went to the first prospective OB yesterday and he said twin #1 was measuring 9w3d and #2 9w1d (I was 9w5d yesterday). He only measured #1's heartbeat (174bpm) as he said #2 was obscured by #1 and he couldn't see it properly.
This morning I went to the second prospective OB and she did a much longer abdominal US and said that twin #1 was a good size, but that the nuchal fold was abnormally thick, indicating high risk of Downs. She also told me that #2 measured only 8w and had no heartbeat, so it was definitely gone.
I'm really shattered by this news. I know it's almost certainly just wishful thinking, but I can't help hoping against hope that the problem was just that #2 was still a bit obscured by #1. It was definitely further back than #1, but lower down than it looked yesterday and still somewhat visible, so I don't feel that's very likely. I just don't get how these two OBs' assessments could be so hugely different...
I went to the first prospective OB yesterday and he said twin #1 was measuring 9w3d and #2 9w1d (I was 9w5d yesterday). He only measured #1's heartbeat (174bpm) as he said #2 was obscured by #1 and he couldn't see it properly.
This morning I went to the second prospective OB and she did a much longer abdominal US and said that twin #1 was a good size, but that the nuchal fold was abnormally thick, indicating high risk of Downs. She also told me that #2 measured only 8w and had no heartbeat, so it was definitely gone.
I'm really shattered by this news. I know it's almost certainly just wishful thinking, but I can't help hoping against hope that the problem was just that #2 was still a bit obscured by #1. It was definitely further back than #1, but lower down than it looked yesterday and still somewhat visible, so I don't feel that's very likely. I just don't get how these two OBs' assessments could be so hugely different...