Considering quick u/s just to look at heart - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 08:59 AM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

We didn't do u/s w/ my son, and we haven't done any this PG either (29 weeks).  But I am considering a quick u/s to look at the heart.  DH mentioned it when he heard a story on NPR about fixing heart issues found on u/s but has since decided we don't need it.  I am of the camp that it could cause neurological harm/not enough studies on it.  However, we do dopplers at every visit (and my dr seems to leave that thing on there for a good while).  Plus we'll do electronic fetal monitoring during labor.  So it isn't like we aren't do any soundwaves.  Dr is okay w/ me not getting it (thinks I'm a little batty but isn't pushing).  He's also okay w/ a quick scan just to look at the heart (my suggestion).  Is 5 min of a pulsed scan really that much more potentially harmful than all the continuous output of the doppler?

HRJ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 10:04 AM
 
Evergreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Where all the women are strong
Posts: 5,295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Personally I am very much in the middle of the road as far as ultrasounds are concerned,  With my last pregnancy I didn't do any ultrasounds, dopplers or fetal monitoring but this time I have chosen to do doppler before I could find the heartbeat with the fetascope and I plan to have a 20 week u/s. Between this pregnancy and last I have met three people who had babies diagnosed in utero with disorders that were easily treatable because they knew about them in advance including omphalocele and hydrocephalus.  So, while these are very rare I decided it was in my comfort zone to get the ultrasound (scheduled for Jan 6 currently).

 

I think that since you feel you should check the heart then you should go ahead and do it if only for your reassurance. Also, I have heard (on MDC- not from any scientific study) that the amount of waves created through doppler are much more concentrated and therefore 'dangerous' (thought I personally don't beleive they are dangerous) than ultrasound.

 

Good luck with whatever you choose to do.


Evergreen- Loving my girls Dylan dust.gifage8, Ava energy.gifage 4 and baby Georgia baby.gif (6/3/11).

Evergreen is offline  
#3 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 10:38 AM
 
MamaChef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

HRJ,

Are you wanting to get a super thorough check with colorflow doppler?

 

The handheld doppler they listen to your baby's heartbeat with is not, like anne frye likes to say (and other regurgitate) , 30X more powerful then ultrasounds (ridiculous nono02.gif )..

 

However, Colorflow doppler is much more powerful then normal ultrasound.  I still wouldnt rule it out if my gut was nagging me about something, but most of the time they can just peek with the regular obstetric US probe and dont need to turn color flow on unless they see something.. then, thank god for colorflow is my opinion.

MamaChef is offline  
#4 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 10:39 AM
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I think if it will elevate a fear, then do it. I am also middle of the road, I don't mind them because of my age, and I felt more comfortable with it, but I do want a limit on it. I have had 3, the 3rd one I thought was my last one, but then the midwife was pushing for 3 more, every other week until the end of my pregnancy. I think that is crazy too much. I do know someone that found issues on an ultrasound that was able to prepare and fix right away, and had a plan when the baby was born.


Mommy to 2 beautiful girls dust.gif4/07 and babyf.gif1/11
closedaccount15 is offline  
#5 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 10:44 AM
 
MamaChef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

http://www.naturalchildbirth.org/nat...ventions27.htm

[Vol 2 Issue 9 March 3, 2000]:

Do most midwives regularly make use of the Doptone? Also, shouldn't each
woman be made fully aware that the Doptone is ultrasonic? Even though the
exposure periods are usually brief, I heard that 1 min. of Doptone is much
stronger--equal to 30 min of the other full-image type ultrasound. Is this
true?
Anon.
====

[Vol 2 Issue 10 March 10, 2000]:

I work for Nicolet Vascular (formerly Imex Medical). Following are excerpts
from a letter written to another person with the same concerns.
-Diane Rugh

In addition, I would like to point out that the FDA limit for power
intensity emitted by a continuous wave ultrasound for fetal use is 0.094
watts per square centimeter. The FDA power intensity limit for pulsed wave
ultrasound for fetal use is 190 watts per square centimeter. The power
emitted by a Doppler can be 2,000 times less than an imager! Imex 3 MHz
probes emit 0.009 watts per square centimeter, a factor of ten times less
than the FDA limit.


Reprinted from Midwifery Today E-News (Vol 2 Issue 10 March 10, 2000)
To subscribe to the E-News write: enews@midwiferytoday.com
For all other matters contact Midwifery Today:
PO Box 2672-940, Eugene OR 97402
541-344-7438, midwifery@aol.com, Midwifery Today

MamaChef is offline  
#6 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 11:22 AM
 
othersomethings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central FL
Posts: 420
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I asked myself this exact same question...there is a thread somewhere in the April DDC I started if you want to look this up. A lot of moms felt the same way, a lot of moms were indefferent, and a lot of moms had very strongly opposing opinions. 

 

In short, I asked myself the question in th first place because my cousin had a baby this summer born with a heart defect - they found it on U/S early on and he had surgery very shortly after birth to begin repairing the defect. 

 

In that situation, I also found out that the number of babies was significantly higher than anything I had previously imagined - numbers that when I thought about it, were reflected in the people I actually know. I asked myself "If I was in my cousins shoes...I wouldn't have had an ultrasound. And I wouldn't have known about the heart defect. And that could have serious ramifications to the health of the baby immediately following birth."

 

So - and this is just the conclusion that I reached for myself, after a lot of reading, thinking, and discussion even with other mamas on this forum...I decided an U/S was right for me in this pregnancy. It wasn't long - about 20 min, and my mind was greatly eased seeing no signs of any heart problems or other potential defects. The risks associated with U/S were less of a priority than the risks of such common defects that could need immediate attention after birth, especially with my plan to give birth either at home or at a birth center. If I were planning a hospital birth, my decision might have been different. 

 

It's clear to me that the decision has to be made on an individual basis - you need to do what is right for you and this child. Your comfort level with various risks, etc. will play the most important factor in each mother's decision. And as long as your decision is well informed, I don't think you or anyone else could ask or expect anything more from you. 


Mama to Ella (1/15/08) and Django (03/20/11) - remembering 2 angel.gif
othersomethings is offline  
#7 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 11:43 AM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Thanks everyone.  To answer your question - we weren't thinking of the color one (just regular).  The reason we have not had any is we have a lot of autism in our family, and we had read an article in Midwifery Today about ultrasounds and autism.  Their take was that autism skyrocketed just around the time the FDA increased the limits on the output for ultrasounds.  We have 4 children in our family.  In many ways, I think our risk of autism is worse than a heart defect.  But I'd also hate to have an undetected heart issue too.

HRJ is offline  
#8 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 11:51 AM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Also, I had read somewhere here on these forums or another forum that 1 min of doppler was equal to 20-30 min of u/s.  I don't know if that is true.  I asked my OB what the difference in mhz was.  He told me (I forget the number).  The ultrasound was higher, but he said it was pulsed instead of continous (doppler is continous).  So maybe there is some truth to that.  He thought it would take 5 min to look at the heart.

HRJ is offline  
#9 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 02:11 PM
 
MamaChef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by HRJ View Post

Also, I had read somewhere here on these forums or another forum that 1 min of doppler was equal to 20-30 min of u/s.  I don't know if that is true.  I asked my OB what the difference in mhz was.  He told me (I forget the number).  The ultrasound was higher, but he said it was pulsed instead of continous (doppler is continous).  So maybe there is some truth to that.  He thought it would take 5 min to look at the heart.



That statistic is NOT TRUE.  I get so angry that it's become such a mantra on this board in particular.  Please read the info at my link above.  The May DDC also has several other links I posted clarifying this in a thread called, To Ultrasound or to Not Ultrasound or something like this.  It explains the difference in dopplex, ultrasound and colorflow doppler

 

Logically.. think about this:   9volt battery... something plugged into a wall.

MamaChef is offline  
#10 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 05:17 PM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaChef View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by HRJ View Post

Also, I had read somewhere here on these forums or another forum that 1 min of doppler was equal to 20-30 min of u/s.  I don't know if that is true.  I asked my OB what the difference in mhz was.  He told me (I forget the number).  The ultrasound was higher, but he said it was pulsed instead of continous (doppler is continous).  So maybe there is some truth to that.  He thought it would take 5 min to look at the heart.



That statistic is NOT TRUE.  I get so angry that it's become such a mantra on this board in particular.  Please read the info at my link above.  The May DDC also has several other links I posted clarifying this in a thread called, To Ultrasound or to Not Ultrasound or something like this.  It explains the difference in dopplex, ultrasound and colorflow doppler

 

Logically.. think about this:   9volt battery... something plugged into a wall.



HRJ is offline  
#11 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 05:21 PM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

So it looks like wattage wise, the pulsed u/s is worse than the continous u/s.  I have had 3 breast ultrasounds during the pregnancy.  I wonder if any of those waves were exposed to baby.  i assume that it was far enough away that it didn't matter.  The baby did kick like crazy when they were happening, but I was lying flat on my back too. 

HRJ is offline  
#12 of 32 Old 12-21-2010, 06:04 PM
tzs
 
tzs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaChef View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by HRJ View Post

Also, I had read somewhere here on these forums or another forum that 1 min of doppler was equal to 20-30 min of u/s.  I don't know if that is true.  I asked my OB what the difference in mhz was.  He told me (I forget the number).  The ultrasound was higher, but he said it was pulsed instead of continous (doppler is continous).  So maybe there is some truth to that.  He thought it would take 5 min to look at the heart.



That statistic is NOT TRUE.  I get so angry that it's become such a mantra on this board in particular.  Please read the info at my link above.  The May DDC also has several other links I posted clarifying this in a thread called, To Ultrasound or to Not Ultrasound or something like this.  It explains the difference in dopplex, ultrasound and colorflow doppler

 

Logically.. think about this:   9volt battery... something plugged into a wall.



THANK YOU!

i have wondered about this since my last pregnancy. we don't do ultrasound unless medically necessary but i do allow doppler. you are right that it is often repeated on MDC that doppler is worse so i was really questioning my use of doppler. and i'm pretty much a dope when it comes to information about electricity thing-a-majigs. i really needed for somebody to tell it to me straight. (somebody other than my OB who whines at me because "ultrasounds are so fuuuuunnnn!")


Reluctant 'Sconie, chassid and mama to sweet toughie Ada Bluma 9/9/09 and loving pittie-mix ("Judge the deed, not the breed!")
tzs is offline  
#13 of 32 Old 12-22-2010, 10:10 AM
 
MamaChef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by HRJ View Post

So it looks like wattage wise, the pulsed u/s is worse than the continous u/s.  I have had 3 breast ultrasounds during the pregnancy.  I wonder if any of those waves were exposed to baby.  i assume that it was far enough away that it didn't matter.  The baby did kick like crazy when they were happening, but I was lying flat on my back too. 



I doubt that any of those reached the baby.  You were around 20 weeks, right? 

 

I bet baby kicked like crazy because you were on your back and you were probably worried if you were anything like me during my breast lump scare the last couple weeks. 

 

((hug))

MamaChef is offline  
#14 of 32 Old 12-22-2010, 10:45 AM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Do you know the wattage of EFMs?  I was on one of those a LONG time during my labor (at least 8 hrs of the 30) b/c the cord was wrapped around my son's neck and his heart rate went down to 40 @ one point.

HRJ is offline  
#15 of 32 Old 12-24-2010, 06:04 PM
 
hollytheteacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


me, dh and 2 boys = our family (oh and a cat...who is also a male...lol)
hollytheteacher is offline  
#16 of 32 Old 12-26-2010, 07:24 AM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Had you had any ultrasounds?  I just read that the ultrasounds do not discover 40% of heart defects.  Someone in the UK or Canada was given a pamphlet at the time of her u/s saying that it only detected 25% of heart defects.  I have read of a few moms on here that did get ultrasounds and were still surprised by heart defects when baby was born. 
 

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.



HRJ is offline  
#17 of 32 Old 12-26-2010, 09:10 AM
 
mysticmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


hh2.gif

mysticmomma is offline  
#18 of 32 Old 12-26-2010, 09:26 AM
 
vbactivist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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. 

vbactivist is offline  
#19 of 32 Old 12-26-2010, 01:36 PM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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. 



HRJ is offline  
#20 of 32 Old 12-26-2010, 01:46 PM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.



HRJ is offline  
#21 of 32 Old 12-26-2010, 08:59 PM
 
vbactivist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

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.

vbactivist is offline  
#22 of 32 Old 12-26-2010, 09:00 PM
 
vbactivist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.


 


vbactivist is offline  
#23 of 32 Old 12-27-2010, 05:03 AM
 
mysticmomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.


 



hh2.gif

mysticmomma is offline  
#24 of 32 Old 12-27-2010, 01:29 PM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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?

HRJ is offline  
#25 of 32 Old 12-27-2010, 01:58 PM
 
Motivated Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Plus DH & DD1(8) & DS(6) & DD2(5) & DD3(2)
Motivated Mama is offline  
#26 of 32 Old 12-27-2010, 02:00 PM
 
Motivated Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Plus DH & DD1(8) & DS(6) & DD2(5) & DD3(2)
Motivated Mama is offline  
#27 of 32 Old 12-27-2010, 03:36 PM - Thread Starter
HRJ
 
HRJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.



HRJ is offline  
#28 of 32 Old 12-27-2010, 07:36 PM
 
Motivated Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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...


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Plus DH & DD1(8) & DS(6) & DD2(5) & DD3(2)
Motivated Mama is offline  
#29 of 32 Old 12-28-2010, 05:36 AM
 
vbactivist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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. 

vbactivist is offline  
#30 of 32 Old 12-28-2010, 07:05 AM
 
Motivated Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Plus DH & DD1(8) & DS(6) & DD2(5) & DD3(2)
Motivated Mama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off