I was thankful to have one because I feel it's one of the only reasons I was able to have the doctors believe DS was preterm. They kept questioning and questioning (he was over 8 lbs and no GD). I kept saying it was either preterm or immaculate conception and they would kind of scoff. Except my first trimester ultrasound exactly matched my dates so they started to believe me.
What is standard for ultrasounds? Is the 8 week one to make sure it's got a heartbeat and sac and all that one of these extras? Are most people not getting any ultrasound until the NST?
Honestly, pregnancy is very pathologized. Some women need extra care for various reasons, but most do not.
In my office, the only u/s that is standard is the 20-week u/s. The NT scan is offered (or was with DD; I don't know if they offer the NT scan u/s anymore or if they just do the cfDNA tests instead) but not standard.
I think that dating ultrasounds can be useful for many women and not needed for many other women.
I guess I had one for both.
DS - I went to my GYN when I got a positive test. He did one, I didn't ask, just did it. Everything looked fine. He referred my to an OB since he didn't do babies.
DD - I didn't have an appointment until 9 weeks with the MW. I had never had a PP period so they recommended one, but left the decision up to me (very crunchy). I had one around 10 weeks and they dated the pregnancy. Turned out to be pretty accurate since she was born on her due date.
I wish it was standard to have one. Instead, during my first pregnancy, I had to find out I had a mmc at my NT scan. The tech there did not have the bedside manner of my regular OB.
I did get a dating u/s for my second pregnancy because I needed peace of mind to know things were going well in there.
Post by cherry1111 on Sept 23, 2014 9:02:16 GMT -5
I was seeing an RE due to recurrent losses and needing to get on blood thinners ASAP after a BFP. I had an ultrasound right around 7 weeks. I assume I'll have the same next time and I'm glad. I am not patient enough to wait any longer. I also knew my ovulation date which was about 4 days after my LMP would indicate. Since I was measuring less than a week behind, they didn't change my due date.
I'm not against it. My ob routinely does a dating us at the first appt. it's not a formal us with a tech and radiologist reading it. It's just the doc sticking the wand in there taking a measurement.
In my office, the only u/s that is standard is the 20-week u/s. The NT scan is offered (or was with DD; I don't know if they offer the NT scan u/s anymore or if they just do the cfDNA tests instead) but not standard.
OOPS, yes, I meant the NT, not the NST. Late pregnancy was too memorable!
My office doesn't even schedule the first appointment until 10-12 weeks. I'm always a little jealous of the people who get to even communicate with their doctors prior to that.
As someone with extremely long and uneven cycles (think 60-120 days) I never realized that everyone didn't get these. Now I feel special
I assumed that early ultrasounds are normal; but that depends on the practice you go to?
In my case, I guess I am thankful that I had one scheduled for 9 weeks; my blood test confirmed the pregnancy, but the ultrasound is where we learned of the loss. While it was a shock, I think I might have been in for a long haul as my body showed no signs of a miscarriage. I guess I am looking at this from a different angle than most right now.
Post by charlotteandwilbur on Sept 23, 2014 9:36:31 GMT -5
Dating ultrasounds between 7-8 weeks were standard at the practice where I delivered DS, and at my new practice with this kid too.
I like it, mainly because I'm crazy with worry during the first trimester and the ultrasounds go a long way toward making me feel more sane. There's something to be said for the mental health of the mom, right?
I'm really glad my OB did a dating scan and that he did extra scans. I have not had a complication free pregnancy though.
I'm pretty sure even if I had an uncomplicated pregnancy, I've read too many stories to have been able to control my anxiety for 20 weeks. That would be excruciating for me personally.
Most of my friends did have first tri ultrasounds, but very few had NT scans.
But that is $19 to you right? I mean all my ultrasounds are free, but when I see what the ultrasound cost on my insurance paperwork it is like $1200.
Nope. $19. Which we then billed back to insurance. It was free to me.
ETA: This was in the same country where my semi-annual MRI cost $600. In the US it is $15k. The government didn't pick up the tab. You just payed up front at the time of service and sought reimburse my from your insurance later if you had it.
Post by spankswife on Sept 23, 2014 9:48:06 GMT -5
I have long cycles. I support this.
Also, Bc the NT scan has to be done in a very specific window, I think it is important to be 100% accurate.
I also think it will help lower the induction rates Bc the timing will be more accurate. Maybe some one who is 41 weeks is really only 39 weeks 2 days, for example, and should be allowed more time to try to go natural.
I have been thinking about this because this pregnancy is not as a result of fertility treatments. This means I will have a lot fewer ultrasounds. I think I only get 12 weeks and 20 weeks. Last time I had 5, 7, 14, 21, 28, 34, 37. Lol. High risk FTW
The thing is, I didn't have regular cycles before, and I don't know if they are suddenly regular now. So if they use the last day calc, I am like 6 weeks pregnant, I could be more like 5 if I ovulated late.
I go to the doc today, will find out when my first u/s is, hoping I will get 8 weeks!
Nope. $19. Which we then billed back to insurance. It was free to me.
ETA: This was in the same country where my semi-annual MRI cost $600. In the US it is $15k. The government didn't pick up the tab. You just payed up front at the time of service and sought reimburse my from your insurance later if you had it.
Post by MadamePresident on Sept 23, 2014 9:51:06 GMT -5
I have long cycles. With Nods I know when I ovulated because I was charting. My due date based on ovulation was a full week later than my due date based on my LMP. Fortunately I had a midwife so it didn't matter. But I'm sure my doctor would have pushed me to get induced. She was born on her LMP due date when my water broke, but the midwife said she look like a 39 week baby.
With Ace I only had one postpartum period, so I don't know how my cycles are after pregnancy. He was born 41 weeks 1 day, but my midwife said he looked like a 40 week baby.
I think a dating ultrasound would be nice, because I know I have long cycles.
I just think that with the general push to lower induction rates, there's going to be a trade-off, and I think first tri dating ultrasounds are a much better compromise since they're less invasive, cheaper, and carry a much lower risk of complications. I will be interested to see if this helps lower the induction rate nationwide.
ETA: I did have an early u/s both pregnancies, and I was induced last time anyway, but still.
In my experience, doctors don't really listen when it comes to a woman that has been charting. Even my midwives (who are like super pro women and super pro taking charge of your fertility and your healthcare) had to go by LMP. I am not sure that not listening is the right word, I think the standard of care was/is just to go by LMP so they go by that even if you have a chart.
I am not sure how I feel about early ultrasounds being mandated. I am not really sure the financial cost is worth the health benefit for the majority of women. I feel like this could be beneficial for some women, like perhaps doctors could ask "when was your LMP, who long are your cycles, etc." If the woman is unsure or answers something like "my cycles are 60 days" a dating ultrasound would certainly be necessary. If she answers my cycles are always 28 days and my last period was on this specific date, it seems less necessary.
This has been my experience as well, and I DO have long cycles. It's very frustrating because if you're scheduling my induction for 40w6d because you won't let me go past 41 weeks, I want to actually BE 40w6d, not 39w6d.
This was also my experience. I had a *really* long cycle when I got pregnant with DD, with 2 negative tests in the middle. I was charting, so I knew when I ovulated, but my OB's office wasn't really interested. 3 beta tests and 2 ultrasounds later, they finally believed that I was 8 weeks pregnant, not 15. That was part of why I switched offices... this was not the first time I felt like they weren't really listening.
Post by sometimesrunner on Sept 23, 2014 10:03:18 GMT -5
Dating ultrasounds were already standard at my OB's practice when I had M over two years ago. Here's what I don't get...if full term is now supposedly 38 weeks instead of 37, doesn't that tell us that each week is incredibly important in pregnancy? Shouldn't doctors actually use the date and no say "well, it's within a week...so we'll just go with LMP." I've seen SO many people make that comment here.
Lol, no. I don't think acog made these recommendations so that radiologists can make more money. Although the job prospects for radiologists aren't that great these days, I don't think this is a move to try and help that!
In my experience, doctors don't really listen when it comes to a woman that has been charting. Even my midwives (who are like super pro women and super pro taking charge of your fertility and your healthcare) had to go by LMP. I am not sure that not listening is the right word, I think the standard of care was/is just to go by LMP so they go by that even if you have a chart.
I am not sure how I feel about early ultrasounds being mandated. I am not really sure the financial cost is worth the health benefit for the majority of women. I feel like this could be beneficial for some women, like perhaps doctors could ask "when was your LMP, who long are your cycles, etc." If the woman is unsure or answers something like "my cycles are 60 days" a dating ultrasound would certainly be necessary. If she answers my cycles are always 28 days and my last period was on this specific date, it seems less necessary.
This has been my experience as well, and I DO have long cycles. It's very frustrating because if you're scheduling my induction for 40w6d because you won't let me go past 41 weeks, I want to actually BE 40w6d, not 39w6d.
Ditto. I have long (and irregular) cycles, and with DD I actually knew when I ovulated. But when I went into the OB, they insisted on giving me an initial due date based on LMP and the notion that I had a 28 day cycle.
That being said, they also gave me an early dating ultrasound, perhaps in part because I was loud about the fact that their due date was wrong and/or in part that I had previously received treatment from them for my long cycles (so they were substantiated)? The dating ultrasound showed -- no surprise here -- that I was about 10 days behind where they thought I was, so they moved my due date. But still, it was infuriating when I was initially trying to tell them and they just kind of shrugged like, "you have no idea what you are talking about, and we are going to ignore you."
Ontario response: I was offered an optional NT scan around 11-13 weeks, and the 20 week scan wasn't optional AFAIK. I also got a bonus 6-7 week ultrasound because I was spotting. I know multiple people who only had the 20 week scan.
Ok. This is in line with what my friends who aren't fert patients get - although I know nobody who waited til 20 weeks.
I am hoping that because I was high risk and fertility last time, and because the pregnancies are so close, and because the only other spontaneous pregnancy I had ended in miscarriage, they might let me get a 7 week u/s but I doubt it.
The reason I was throwing out the cost of an ultrasound in KL was because they gave them at every appointment unless the patient declines. That is one of the big reasons to use private healthcare for a pregnancy there (no guaranteed u/s at government hospitals). I was just pointing out that having more scans doesn't necessitate the price increasing.