meant 34 not 36 preggers brain lol

Thankyou janey, I had my 4 yr old at 36 only had the triple test and didnt even think about it then. I also have a 13yr old and a 11 yr old dont think i have been treated muc differently and only have the odd "This your last one, then" remark.

Thankyou Julie that has put my mind at rest esp as have simular results as your's. Im sure everything will be ok its just that little niggle as its soo close now. I am seeing consultant next Thursday about induction so will get himto go through it again. Take Care x

Hi, that sounds like a good explanation. I'm only 16 +2  weeks, and still waiting for my results. I'm prepared for the considrations I may have to take as I have a cousin with Down's, and my Aunt was 35 (like me) when she was born. Even though 35 isn't old, I have to say that it feels it! I have three kids already - 14 yrs, 16 yrs and 17 yrs old  - yes, I was a teenage mum. (Not the typical stereo-type 'chavvy' gym slip mum people immediately think of I might add!) I can't tell you how differently I'm treated though - like I'm something special instead of something one would scrape of a shoe like I was treated 18 years ago!!

I'm not an expert but I had a son last year aged 38 and am now 16+6 with another aged 39.  Had a nuchal scan with both.  As I understand it the age related ratio 1 in 180 is the average likelihood of a woman of your age having a downs baby.  You blood results and nuchal fold measurement and presence of nasal bone add your own personal information to this average statistic to indicate your own likelihood.  Mine was similar to yours in both this pregnancy and with my son and I was told both time that this was a really good result (1 in 3000+).  I think only 1 in 250 or so is considered high risk.  Not sure I've explained this very well but your ratio is great and I'm sure all will be fine.  Good luck Julie x

Hi, I know iv left it soo long to ask for advise, but mw has never seemed worried or offered me a amnio but now its getting so close im getting so worried. At my nuchal scan and blood test it showed a normal transluency and a nasal bone.

The bloods were 1>180 background risk for downs but then had adjusted risk as 1>3587 Which states the adjusted risk is the risk at term.

MW has always said thats a good result but never fully explained anyone have any idea?