or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › I'm Pregnant › Considering quick u/s just to look at heart
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Considering quick u/s just to look at heart - Page 2

post #21 of 32


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRJ View Post


Did your baby have surgery as soon as he or she was born? 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vbactivist View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by hollytheteacher View Post

Congenital heart defects are the NUMBER 1 birth defect and many babies who have them do not live to see their first birthday.  I know that sounds harsh, but is the reality.  My son was born with one and I have learned a lot since his birth.  He needed open heart surgery at 3 months old.  I WISH I had known before he was born so i could have researched and maybe came to terms with it more.  Finding out when he was 1 day old after a traumatic 36 hour labor/birth was the hardest moment in my life.


Just a different perspective.  I knew about my baby's TOF and it pretty much ruined my entire pregnancy.  I was sick with fear and grief the entire time :(  I agree that it was nice to know so that she was born in the appropriate place, but the knowing before hand was not helpful at all in helping to prepare me. I know everyone is different though. 


 


Yes.  and then again at 5.5 months.  I am glad we knew because she was born at the right hospital (if we hadn't known I probably would have had her at a community hospital and she would have had to be transferred - leaving me at a different hospital).   But It was really hard going through the pregnancy knowing we were facing newborn heart surgery.  I really thought she was going to die :(  and so I had a hard time loving her (we didn't know the sex until after she was born, though).    I had plenty of time to google all the worst case scenarios (even the though ped cardiologist specifcally told me not to go home and look stuff up on the internet - ha!).  I have a couple of friends who didn't know about their baby's heart condition - and they wished they did know.  I think it probably always seems better the other way.

post #22 of 32


you would get referred if there is a reason (risk factors, seeing something on the u./s etc...(

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRJ View Post


How did you know to go to a specialist?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticmomma View Post

you aren't going to get the best view of the heart on an average ultrasound. We needed to go to a specialist. Unless there are family risk factors or a wierd heart sound through doppler, I'd pass.


 
post #23 of 32


We were referred for an ultrasound because of an abnormal heart rhythm at a regular midwife appointment. The ultrasound found some other abnormal things and also found out we were having a boy. My husband has a heart defect, and so does his father. Once we put all the information together we determined it was best to go for a fetal echocardiogram and everything ended up being fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRJ View Post


How did you know to go to a specialist?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticmomma View Post

you aren't going to get the best view of the heart on an average ultrasound. We needed to go to a specialist. Unless there are family risk factors or a wierd heart sound through doppler, I'd pass.


 
post #24 of 32
Thread Starter 

Does anyone know what the stats are on heart defects?  One in X amt of births?  I know that the stats for autism are 1 in 150 and since we have 4 children w/ autism in the family - that's probably a higher # for us.  I am reading info on autism and ultrasounds (cell division, etc).  And the question I keep coming back to is - statistically which is more probable that i have a child w/ autism or a a child w/ a heart defect?  Also, my OB thinks his tech could look at the heart in 5 minutes.  If I had the tech use Standard B mode instead of doppler mode, would I see anything.  And do you think that they could look at the heart in 5 minutes?  I'm 30 weeks.  He said they could look at the heart any time during the PG.  But I do wonder if the longer I wait, the harder it is to get a good view?

post #25 of 32

I think it's 1/250, but I would have to double-check.  29 years ago, ultrasound failed to detect my sister's interrupted aortic arch and she died at 3 days old.  I imagine it would be caught with today's technology.  My daughter also had a congenital heart defect, an aortic coarctation, which also was not detectable on ultrasound.  She needed surgery to repair this.  SO, is an ultrasound helpful?  I'd say yes, despite my particular examples, and in the future would continue to have at least one prenatal ultrasound.

post #26 of 32

Re: My last post - 1/115-150 births have a congenital heart defect.  

post #27 of 32
Thread Starter 


Do you think standard B mode would pick it up or would I need the newer doppler u/s?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motivated Mama View Post

I think it's 1/250, but I would have to double-check.  29 years ago, ultrasound failed to detect my sister's interrupted aortic arch and she died at 3 days old.  I imagine it would be caught with today's technology.  My daughter also had a congenital heart defect, an aortic coarctation, which also was not detectable on ultrasound.  She needed surgery to repair this.  SO, is an ultrasound helpful?  I'd say yes, despite my particular examples, and in the future would continue to have at least one prenatal ultrasound.

post #28 of 32

I'm not sure about the type of ultrasounds...but I did find this article and it's interesting that 80-90% of cardiac malformations are not suspected prior to delivery despite the high rate of prenatal ultrasound...

post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motivated Mama View Post

I'm not sure about the type of ultrasounds...but I did find this article and it's interesting that 80-90% of cardiac malformations are not suspected prior to delivery despite the high rate of prenatal ultrasound...


Well, and I know that my daughters defect would have been picked up immediately after she was born.   She had a very pronounced murmur.  Most people I know were diagnosed following birth. 

post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by vbactivist View Post




Well, and I know that my daughters defect would have been picked up immediately after she was born.   She had a very pronounced murmur.  Most people I know were diagnosed following birth. 



 



This would be an argument against ultrasound, right? I neither agree nor disagree with prenatal ultrasound and think it's up to the mother. My daughter had CoA and it was not diagnosed until she was 9 months and had suffered because of this. Like I mentioned previously, I had an ultrasound with her (2 actually, to re-check her kidneys since my son had a multicystic dysplastic kidney) and they found nothing worrisome, but with a coarctation, sometimes it isn't visible until after the ductus arteriosis closes (about 2 weeks). By the time of her surgery, her femoral pulses were absent and multiple collateral arteries had formed creating a murmer that was unheard over her screaming protests.

OP, the fact is, most babies are healthy. You have to weigh the risks and benefits for yourself. Is the risk of ultrasound worth it when 1/150 children have a heart defect and 80-90% of those are undetected before birth? Perhaps, if it affects where you will deliver and perhaps, if you think your unborn baby may have an increased risk. For me, I tend to follow my intuition.
post #31 of 32


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motivated Mama View Post





 

This would be an argument against ultrasound, right? I neither agree nor disagree with prenatal ultrasound and think it's up to the mother. My daughter had CoA and it was not diagnosed until she was 9 months and had suffered because of this. Like I mentioned previously, I had an ultrasound with her (2 actually, to re-check her kidneys since my son had a multicystic dysplastic kidney) and they found nothing worrisome, but with a coarctation, sometimes it isn't visible until after the ductus arteriosis closes (about 2 weeks). By the time of her surgery, her femoral pulses were absent and multiple collateral arteries had formed creating a murmer that was unheard over her screaming protests.OP, the fact is, most babies are healthy. You have to weigh the risks and benefits for yourself. Is the risk of ultrasound worth it when 1/150 children have a heart defect and 80-90% of those are undetected before birth? Perhaps, if it affects where you will deliver and perhaps, if you think your unborn baby may have an increased risk. For me, I tend to follow my intuition.


Yes - I wish I hadn't known ahead of time.  Like I said - they caught her defect in utero.  But it ruined my pregnancy with her - knowing about it and worrying.  I understand that other people think it would help to know.  In general, though, I am a less is more kind of person.  I figure most stuff can be handled after the baby is born. 

post #32 of 32
vbactivist - I totally get you. Similarly, I wouldn't test for Down Syndrome.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Pregnant
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › I'm Pregnant › Considering quick u/s just to look at heart