Because I was going to be the ripe old age of 35 when I had Miss A in March 2005, my OBGYN told us about this optional and fairly new genetics screening test available at either Baptist Hospital or Vanderbilt Medical Center. We were open to the idea of any new test, especially since it was noninvasive. I have to admit, however, that the test results caused me a lot of unnecessary stress. The results do not tell you whether or not your child has Down Syndrome, they just tell your statistical chances of having a child with Down Syndrome.

Well, my test results came back higher for my age. In fact, I tested as if I were a 37-year-old for statistical chances of Miss A having Down Syndrome. I can’t tell you how upset I was when I found this out and she is a perfectly healthy one-year-old. My test results came back as 1 in 154. The average for a 35-year-old woman to have a child with Down Syndrome is around 1 in 300, according to the USA Today article cited below. Once I calmed down and realized Miss A would more than likely be very healthy (and she is), I was fine, but with pregnancy hormones raging I had a difficult time realizing my test results were not what I had anticipated. If you aren’t mentally prepared for your test results to come back something other than glowing, you may not want to have the test. We also opted not to have an amniocentesis, but because my results from the nuchal translucency test came back a little higher than average for my age, we were given that option. It’s strictly a personal decision as to whether or not you are an “older mama” of 35 and up and decide to have additional genetics testing. I thought it would be better to be more informed, but the nuchal translucency test does not definitively tell you anything and if you are already opposed to having an amniocentesis, than I would probably opt not to do it. Just my two cents. I found very little information on this test on the Internet last year, so perhaps this information will help someone.

A helpful place to vent and read about other women who are pregnant and age 35 and up is on ivillage.com’s pregnancy message boards. I would advise against trying to self-diagnose any kind of problem on the Internet, though. There is a lot of information out there that is misleading and inaccurate.

The pros of the test, however, include that it is noninvasive. It poses absolutely no risk to the baby and consists of a blood test and a an ultrasound to measure the clear (”translucent”) space in the tissue at the back of your developing baby’s neck. The test must be performed between the 11th and 14th weeks of pregnancy. Dr. John Bruner, a pioneer in fetal surgery at Vanderbilt Medical Center and world famous for the “hand of hope” photo in which he holds an unborn baby’s hand during surgery, performed the ultrasound on Miss Aa. I did not realize that’s who he was until after it was scheduled, but talk about confidence in your doctor! Cons include the mental stress of wondering about the “unknown” and our insurance, Blue Cross Blue Shield, did not pay for the testing as it was considered optional.

I wanted to update this (January 2007) with a note saying that I appreciate the comments that have been e-mailed to me about this page. You can write me at blondemomblog@yahoo.com with your thoughts or comments. I’m glad we decided to not do further testing with Miss A. The thing is my husband and I knew we would not terminate the pregnancy, even if she had Down’s Syndrome. It’s a strictly personal decision during a time that can be filled with a lot of unknowns. Although I tend to be a firm believer in “knowledge is power,” I sometimes wonder if all the “knowing” can be detrimental. On the other hand, some people want to know so that they can be prepared for any medical issues when their child is born. This whole parenting thing is a leap of faith, isn’t it?

Helpful links:

New February 2008 -

What to Expect When You’re Expecting Website
Madison Mom blogger’s Nuchal Screen Experience

Older links:

Baby Center
Johns Hopkins
University of California, San Francisco, Children’s Hospital
OBGYN.net
Washington Post article, November 10, 2005