Apparently, I'm one of those "I had a period" people - Page 2

[monkeyscience]

Bummer. Hope your next chart is unequivocally pregnant!

[Jaimee]

Did you get your blood test results for today?

[crystal_buffaloe]

Not yet -- I went in for the draw this morning before work and I have a follow-up appointment tomorrow at 11:30.

[Jaimee]

That's lame they made you wait.  Usually the results are in within a few hours.  Keep us updated!!!

[crystal_buffaloe]

Okay, so I went in for my follow-up today and the HCG yesterday was 2.2 -- and bleeding stopped two days ago and cramping stopped yesterday, so that's all good news.

The bad news is that my doctor said she'd like for me to wait 3 months before TTC. I pressed her just a little on it, and she said something about dating purposes, which I poo-poohed (if we'd gone by LMP for my daughter, my due date would have been weeks off -- and she was induced at 42 weeks even with the corrected due date, and the LMP for this pregnancy was even worse) and then she said that my uterine lining needed a chance to thicken or somesuch.

I haven't been able to find much on pub med -- except kind of a frustrating article that said it needed to be studied more -- well, yes! I did find 3 studies that looked at intervals of less than or greater than 6 months, and it seems like conceiving within 6 months is preferable, but there was no info on a shorter time frame (and I'm thinking, like, immediately). All I can think is that the likelihood that I’ll conceive within 6 months is greater if I don’t miss out on the first half of it.

So now I’m not sure what to do – if I should email and really ask for more of an explanation, or if I should just ignore it, or what -- and then if I do get pregnant right away, will that make the first prenatal really awkward? The thing is, I really do like this doctor, and it’s not like she said it was forbidden – just that that’s what they recommend. It just makes me afraid that she’s not following evidence-based care in other areas, when I liked her so much before.

I should maybe formulate this into more of a defined question -- or do a search for prior threads -- I know that waiting or not waiting for a cycle between m/c and TTC is a continual debate.

[Belia]

I'm so sorry that your news was not good, CB.  I wish you peace.

I have no info or experience with TTC after a miscarriage, except I know that often it is a little easier to conceive because the residual hormones hanging around your body help to sustain a pg.  But waiting 3 months sounds long.  Especially if the main thing the dr is worried about is accurate dating.  BAH.  That's BS.  Women have successfully been having babies for gazillions of years without charting and LMPs and measuring fundal heights and all that jazz.  

[Jaimee]

Originally Posted by crystal_buffaloe 

The bad news is that my doctor said she'd like for me to wait 3 months before TTC. I pressed her just a little on it, and she said something about dating purposes, which I poo-poohed (if we'd gone by LMP for my daughter, my due date would have been weeks off -- and she was induced at 42 weeks even with the corrected due date, and the LMP for this pregnancy was even worse) and then she said that my uterine lining needed a chance to thicken or somesuch.

I should maybe formulate this into more of a defined question -- or do a search for prior threads -- I know that waiting or not waiting for a cycle between m/c and TTC is a continual debate.

This is an often asked question and there are many threads on it you can search for here and in the Pregnancy Loss forum.  The general answer is this... doctors will recommend you wait anywhere from 1-3 months to TTC again after an early b/c of two reasons: dating purposes and emotional readiness.  Sometimes they throw the uterine lining argument in there as well, as yours did, but that's not nearly as common as the other two reasons.  The first reason you are right to dismiss.  If you're charting you have a date of conception.  If you opt for an early u/s you'll get an accurate due date.  So there really is no reason to worry about dating.  The second reason (emotional readiness), however, is definitely something to consider.  Some women need time to process and grieve no matter how early the loss was and that is very valid.  Others feel ready right away.  That's a personal decision. 

Many women experience increased fertility in the cycles following an early loss b/c of slightly elevated hormones.  I conceived my first the very next cycle after my first early loss.  I conceived my second two cycles after my second early loss.  You'll see many similar stories on here as well.  So my advice is, if you feel ready to TTC, just go for it and see what happens.  

[gratefulstella]

Oh Crystal_Buffalo I am so sorry, I really just went through this SAME (LITERALLY) exact thing you did, I had what I thought was a period- had red blood but a SUPER short "period", I don't chart so I didn't have that to go on- then after what I thought was a period I did get really strong positives. I work in a radiology department and had a friend of mine do an U/S and she said it looked normal but she pegged me at 1-2 wks less than what I thought....didn't really have bad cramping  but went to her again because of 'instincts' and using her dating I should have been about 7-8 wks preggers but she put me at 5, I thought something just didn't seem right. Went to see a Midwife for a prelim appt and we did a scan there and there was nothing...and I had started spotting so I knew it was "over".

"they" told me 3 months as well but from what I have read when YOUR ready- your ready...If your body is ready to accept another pregnancy it will, if not then AF will come to town- so after one cycle we are trying again. I wanted to start trying right away but was unable to for reasons I would rather not talk about- lets just say DH wasn't available...Either way I am sending  and a LOT of  your way and just know you are NOT alone (I know you know that but really it's just nice to hear every now and then) I really am sorry you are going through this, but the way I look at it is hopefully our bodies now have some extra UMPH to have a sticky baby :)

[gr00vymama]

I am soooo sorry Crystal_Buffaloe!  I haven't been on here in a while and this is the first thread I read....what sad news .  Three months is a long time to wait, it would drive me crazy!  I'm sure your body knows what to do.

[crystal_buffaloe]

Thanks again, all.

Gr00vymama -- I remember that we were two week waiting within a day of each other Sorry the first news back was a bummer !

Gratefulstella -- That is really what threw me -- the fact that the strong positives came after the bleeding. In a way, it makes it a little harder, since they were getting stronger post "period." I was hopeful but still incredulous. In another way, though, I knew something was not right.

I think we are possibly ready to try again right away, but I'm not sure. It would be a lot easier to wait a cycle if mine weren't so long and strange. (That seems like something of a compromise -- wiating one cycle versus the 3 months.)
Edited by crystal_buffaloe - 10/26/11 at 8:03pm

[gr00vymama]

Hey Crystal_Buffaloe, I'm in the two week wait now and wish you were too!  Hopefully you'll be back in the game next month:)  My cycle is kinda funky this month so I may be there with you again next month.  

[naturegirl]

So sorry for your loss. I wanted to pop in and give you hope though! Two of my 3 sticky pregnancies I had a "period" one is now 7 years old and the other is happily gestating at 26 weeks along. My "issue" was low progesterone and I would suggest getting your levels checked. My only sticky pregnancy that I didn't have significant bleeding is the one that I started taking progesterone as soon as ovulation was confirmed. He is now 3. :) Maybe take a month or two to check your hormone levels and then go again. I think 3 months waiting is unnecessary if you are emotionally ready. IMO. Good luck!