If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
m/c or loss statistics by week (prev loss ment)
Hi folks,
I've heard that a surprising large percentage of (known) pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that the risk of miscarriage is highest in the first trimester. It would seem surprising that that the risk is even throughout the first trimester and then suddenly changes in the second. So, I'm interested in the by week statistics, especially given what happened last time (stillbirth at 20 weeks, due to a faulty placenta, low amniotic fluid, etc). Basically, I want to have a sense of overall how unlikely that was, and how unlikely other events with similar outcomes are. Peace of mind and all that. I found one site so far: http://www.pregnancyloss.info/statistics.htm I'm curious if anyone else has any info. The 3% cited in the second trimester is higher than I expected (I was thinking it would be something more like 1%). I also can't tell from this site if the 5% for weeks 6-12 means "5% of all pregnancies that get this far end in miscarriage or stillbirth" or "5% of all pregnancies that get this far end in miscarriage or stillbirth in weeks 6-12". In otherwords, is the 3% cited for the 2nd trimester included in the 5% for weeks 6-12 (unlikely, but still not entirely clear). Thanks, Emily -- DS 5/02 Scheherazade, stillborn at 20 weeks 3/04 EDD Labor Day '05 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Emily" wrote in message ... Hi folks, I've heard that a surprising large percentage of (known) pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that the risk of miscarriage is highest in the first trimester. It would seem surprising that that the risk is even throughout the first trimester and then suddenly changes in the second. It's not. The highest rate of "pregnancy failure" by far is in the first few weeks. The risk drops with every landmark passed... It's almost like there are these hurdles, and for every one a baby passes, the survival rate jumps. First hurdle is implantation. A huge number of fertilized eggs just never quite manage it. Next hurdle is cell differentiation and "getting into the swing" of pregnancy hormone production. Either thing goes wrong and the period is late or a "blighted ovum" occurs and the pregnancy just doesn't get going. Next hurdle is the heartbeat. The baby I lost stopped growing right around the time the heart should have started beating. I carried it another week and a half and then miscarried a big (for that stage) placenta and tiny embryo (placenta the size of a half dollar, only thicker, embryo the size of a grain of rice.) The organs develop and the body changes rapidly during those first 12 weeks... and that's when things are most likely to go awry. It's also the time when the woman's hormones are supporting the pregnancy more than the placenta is, and if something gets out of whack there, either with the woman's hormones or placental function, things can go wrong there, too. So you start with a huge percentage not making it to implantation. A significant percentage don't get going on the cell division properly or the mother's hormones just don't do what they need to do to maintain the pregnancy during the first weeks. Then some don't manage to get the heart started, etc. etc. Interesting tidbits I gleaned somewhere... when a baby implants often determines likelihood of survival. An implantation at 12 days post ovulation might mean an 86% miscarriage rate (and the baby I lost implanted late) while an implantation at day 9 might only mean a 13% miscarriage rate. Yet 10% of viable pregnancies don't show signs of implantation (via HCG production) until 14 dpo... So you can see there are a LOT of factors which affect how well a pregnancy gets going and keeps going. The reassuring thing is that with every day, the risk drops. You aren't "just as likely" to miscarry at 10 weeks as at 6 weeks... Jenrose |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Emily" wrote:
Thanks, Emily -- DS 5/02 Scheherazade, stillborn at 20 weeks 3/04 EDD Labor Day '05 Emily, I do not have anything to add to your post except that I did not make the connection that you are Emily, Scheherazade's mommy. I have not yet offered you my congratulations on this pregnancy so I just wanted to let you know that I am SO happy for you. I really have been keeping you and the other m/c mommies in my thoughts and prayers. I was really hoping to see you back here. So, sorry to change the focus of the thread, but I just wanted to let you know that I am still thinking of you and praying for you and- CONGRATULATIONS! -Kara. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:32:42 -0800, Emily wrote:
I'm curious if anyone else has any info. The 3% cited in the second trimester is higher than I expected (I was thinking it would be something more like 1%). I think this 3% may include women who didn't have any prenatal testing done until later in their pregnancy, only to find out their baby has died way before that. As you say, it would be helpful to know if these numbers reflect that actual m/c date or the date the baby died. In many of the established first trimester m/c's, the baby has died up to several weeks prior to the diagnosis. I have always read that after hearing a heartbeat, the risk for m/c drops to ~1%. The 1% stillbirth rate has always scared the hell out of me, until I learned that in many cases there were already known complications before birth. It is extremely rare to have stillbirth without knowing of something wrong in advance. That settled my fear a bit. No matter how you look at it: pregnancy is risky business. And the only thing you can control, is your diet, which fortunately seems to have a major effect on the outcome. -- -- I mommy to DS (July '02) mommy to four tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04, 20 May'04 & 28 Oct'04) preggers with twins EDD August'05 guardian of DH (33) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kara H wrote:
"Emily" wrote: Emily, I do not have anything to add to your post except that I did not make the connection that you are Emily, Scheherazade's mommy. I have not yet offered you my congratulations on this pregnancy so I just wanted to let you know that I am SO happy for you. I really have been keeping you and the other m/c mommies in my thoughts and prayers. I was really hoping to see you back here. So, sorry to change the focus of the thread, but I just wanted to let you know that I am still thinking of you and praying for you and- CONGRATULATIONS! -Kara. Thanks, Kara. I'm not consistent about putting Scheherazade in my .sig, out of shyness I guess. Thanks for remembering her Emily -- DS 5/02 Scheherazade, stillborn at 20 weeks, 3/04 EDD Labor Day '05 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jenrose wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message ... Hi folks, I've heard that a surprising large percentage of (known) pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that the risk of miscarriage is highest in the first trimester. It would seem surprising that that the risk is even throughout the first trimester and then suddenly changes in the second. It's not. The highest rate of "pregnancy failure" by far is in the first few weeks. The risk drops with every landmark passed... It's almost like there are these hurdles, and for every one a baby passes, the survival rate jumps. First hurdle is implantation. A huge number of fertilized eggs just never quite manage it. Next hurdle is cell differentiation and "getting into the swing" of pregnancy hormone production. Either thing goes wrong and the period is late or a "blighted ovum" occurs and the pregnancy just doesn't get going. Next hurdle is the heartbeat. The baby I lost stopped growing right around the time the heart should have started beating. I carried it another week and a half and then miscarried a big (for that stage) placenta and tiny embryo (placenta the size of a half dollar, only thicker, embryo the size of a grain of rice.) The organs develop and the body changes rapidly during those first 12 weeks... and that's when things are most likely to go awry. It's also the time when the woman's hormones are supporting the pregnancy more than the placenta is, and if something gets out of whack there, either with the woman's hormones or placental function, things can go wrong there, too. Thanks, Jenrose. So it sounds like when I saw a heartbeat on a an early u/s (around or just before 6 weeks, dates aren't clear yet), I'd already passed a lot of the hurdles then. So you start with a huge percentage not making it to implantation. A significant percentage don't get going on the cell division properly or the mother's hormones just don't do what they need to do to maintain the pregnancy during the first weeks. Then some don't manage to get the heart started, etc. etc. Interesting tidbits I gleaned somewhere... when a baby implants often determines likelihood of survival. An implantation at 12 days post ovulation might mean an 86% miscarriage rate (and the baby I lost implanted late) while an implantation at day 9 might only mean a 13% miscarriage rate. Yet 10% of viable pregnancies don't show signs of implantation (via HCG production) until 14 dpo... So you can see there are a LOT of factors which affect how well a pregnancy gets going and keeps going. The reassuring thing is that with every day, the risk drops. You aren't "just as likely" to miscarry at 10 weeks as at 6 weeks... Thanks. It is reassuring. I was the one-in-a-hundred (or one of three in a hundred last time), but the peri and the OB both said there's no reason to suspect that that's any more likely for me this time than it is for anyone. And, it seems that I don't have any systematic trouble with the first part -- that is, out of three pg, no signs of early miscarriage. And while I think that a loss at 20 weeks is in some ways harder than a loss at 6 or 8 or 10, I think it's easier in other ways than *multiple* losses at 6 or 8 or 10. (I do think I had one *really* early miscarriage -- no positive hpt -- but that hardly counts.) -- Emily DS 5/02 Scheherazade, stillborn at 20 weeks, 3/04 EDD Labor Day '05 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ilse Witch wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:32:42 -0800, Emily wrote: I'm curious if anyone else has any info. The 3% cited in the second trimester is higher than I expected (I was thinking it would be something more like 1%). I think this 3% may include women who didn't have any prenatal testing done until later in their pregnancy, only to find out their baby has died way before that. As you say, it would be helpful to know if these numbers reflect that actual m/c date or the date the baby died. In many of the established first trimester m/c's, the baby has died up to several weeks prior to the diagnosis. I have always read that after hearing a heartbeat, the risk for m/c drops to ~1%. Hm, I'll bet that just seeing one (on u/s, before it can be heard) probably isn't quite the same. Still, it was reassuring. The 1% stillbirth rate has always scared the hell out of me, until I learned that in many cases there were already known complications before birth. It is extremely rare to have stillbirth without knowing of something wrong in advance. That settled my fear a bit. Tell me about it! Especially after being in that 1% -- though mine was in some sense an earlier problem that took a while to manifest, and it wasn't sudden. No matter how you look at it: pregnancy is risky business. And the only thing you can control, is your diet, which fortunately seems to have a major effect on the outcome. I'm doing what I can (avoiding all the stuff to avoid, and eating reasonably well, though I could do even better). For me, it came down to the desire to have another child outweighing the risk of going through what we went through again... Emily |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:18:23 -0800, Emily wrote:
For me, it came down to the desire to have another child outweighing the risk of going through what we went through again... And I'll keep my fingers and toes crossed until you know for absolute 100% certain that all is well this time! I breathed a big sigh of relief after the good u/s yesterday, I cannot imagine having to wait another 10w or more before feeling that relief. I hope you can cope somehow, if you ever feel the need to rant, feel free! My yahoo dot com username is ivbemmel, you're welcome to drop by any time. -- -- I mommy to DS (July '02) mommy to four tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04, 20 May'04 & 28 Oct'04) preggers with twins EDD August'05 guardian of DH (33) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Emily wrote: Hi folks, I've heard that a surprising large percentage of (known) pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that the risk of miscarriage is highest in the first trimester. It would seem surprising that that the risk is even throughout the first trimester and then suddenly changes in the second. So, I'm interested in the by week statistics, especially given what happened last time (stillbirth at 20 weeks, due to a faulty placenta, low amniotic fluid, etc). Basically, I want to have a sense of overall how unlikely that was, and how unlikely other events with similar outcomes are. Peace of mind and all that. I found one site so far: http://www.pregnancyloss.info/statistics.htm I'm curious if anyone else has any info. The 3% cited in the second trimester is higher than I expected (I was thinking it would be something more like 1%). I also can't tell from this site if the 5% for weeks 6-12 means "5% of all pregnancies that get this far end in miscarriage or stillbirth" or "5% of all pregnancies that get this far end in miscarriage or stillbirth in weeks 6-12". In otherwords, is the 3% cited for the 2nd trimester included in the 5% for weeks 6-12 (unlikely, but still not entirely clear). Thanks, Emily -- DS 5/02 Scheherazade, stillborn at 20 weeks 3/04 EDD Labor Day '05 Congratulations Emily! I didn't see your earlier announcement. Miscarriage rates vary enormously based on the age of the woman. For instance according to Satistics Canada women 20-34 had the lowest rate of losses after 20 weeks -- 5.3/1000 births. The rate was higher for older women as well as for teenage mothers (this is 1998 data). The stillbirth rate was also higher in multiple pregnancies than for singletons (0.5% of singletons were lost at 20 or more weeks.) In terms of earlier losses this again varies tremendously depending on age. I hope you do find it reassuring that with just about every passing day at this point your risk goes down. Elle 2/16/2005 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Elle wrote:
Congratulations Emily! I didn't see your earlier announcement. Miscarriage rates vary enormously based on the age of the woman. For instance according to Satistics Canada women 20-34 had the lowest rate of losses after 20 weeks -- 5.3/1000 births. The rate was higher for older women as well as for teenage mothers (this is 1998 data). The stillbirth rate was also higher in multiple pregnancies than for singletons (0.5% of singletons were lost at 20 or more weeks.) In terms of earlier losses this again varies tremendously depending on age. I hope you do find it reassuring that with just about every passing day at this point your risk goes down. Thanks, Elle. 0.5% of singletons after 20 or more weeks is a very reassuring number. Emily -- DS 5/02 Scheherazade, stillborn 20 weeks, 3/04 EDD Labor Day '05 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Back for #3 (prev loss ment) | Paula Johnson | Pregnancy | 31 | November 28th 04 06:15 PM |
Pregnancy & Infant Loss Awareness Month | Crystal Dreamer | Pregnancy | 5 | October 2nd 04 09:38 AM |
Reflections (pg loss, adopted child ment) | Jamie Clark | Pregnancy | 11 | March 4th 04 02:55 AM |
Announcement/ Loss of Twins Ment | Colleywobbles_24 | Twins & Triplets | 19 | September 8th 03 05:40 AM |
Update -loss ment | Astromum | Pregnancy | 5 | July 23rd 03 03:44 AM |