« And the number is... | Main | 5w0d and counting... »

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Comments

ivfcycler

it doesn't matter if it's only 10 miles, surely. it is a different lab!

were you thinking 17dpo and wrote 17dp3dt?

higher beta numbers generally seem good:
Fertility and Sterility
Volume 88, Issue 1, July 2007, Pages 82-89
Early serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin in pregnancies after in vitro fertilization: contribution of treatment variables and prediction of long-term pregnancy outcome
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6K-4N3GX2Y-8&_user=4420&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059607&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4420&md5=00f8180868aa8b3bd18903f30648a953

Jody

How many embryos were transferred last time? (I'm too lazy/rushed to check.)

I had perfectly normal doubling times just at the beginning. I'm not sure when any of that starts becoming predictive of anything, other than the very extremely good news of pregnancy progressing.

Yay!

Emma Jane

Ivfcycler -- thanks for catching my counting error! The two labs this time are part of the same "health system," and I would guess run the same processes in as standard a way as possible.

For all I know, Cornell just uses something off the shelf for its betas. But they run FSH differently from other people, and estradiol during stims, too (they get two numbers for both of them, I think), so it seems likely that, if there's an outlier processwise, it's be Cornell, not two branches of the same ratty local medical chain.

And what I've been Googling desperately is progesterone levels -- but, whatever. The papers that came up were in different units and/or the progesterone was adminstered vaginally, and it was all too different.

Jody -- in 2004 we transferred 4 embryos, all 7 cells and up.

ivfcycler

try
Human Reproduction 2005 20(3):741-746
Day 14 maternal serum progesterone levels predict pregnancy outcome in IVF/ICSI treatment cycles: a prospective study

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/3/741

i thought my progesterone level -- the one cycle i had a high enough hcg to check progesterone -- was right smack in the middle of the range this article found predicted abnormal pregnancy outcome. sadly what i thought were the article's predictions held true for me (trisomy and miscarriage). but the doctor thought i had a good level, and she did her r.e. fellowship at the very highly regarded rival school of the one where i teach so i'd think she'd know this sort of thing, so i'll be looking into the units more closely if i ever get to the point of another progesterone check. (i'm a recently tenured prof. at the school you spent your sabbatical at, i've gathered from some details in your entries then, though i have no idea who you are IRL and actually don't think i've ever met anyone in the department you were visiting.)

keeping my fingers crossed -- funny how i seem to randomly check your page after a few months and find you've just posted with news of a new cycle.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

April 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

Over at the knit blog

Looking In


Looking Out


Utilities



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004