Looking for DE statistics/info (risks, cancer ment)

Looking for DE statistics/info (risks, cancer ment)

CocoBoston
CocoBoston

June 28th, 2012, 7:31 pm #1

Hello Ladies,

I am looking for specific information on carrying a child via DE. I am 45, healthy (height/weight appropriate, low bp, no medications or medical issues etc) and hoping to have a child via DE.

My husband is very concerned with risks associated with carrying a child at the age of 45. I called my ob/gyn who said if my health is good,and the egg is healthy (and young) that I shouldn't have any risks that a younger woman wouldn't have to deal with, with the expection of having a very slightly higher risk for high bp (but just a hair more risk).

DH brought up an elevated risk of BC due to the estrogen/progesterone I would have to take. My understanding is that the hormones are so short term that there is no real risk, but I can't find stats to back this assertion up.

Are there web-sites or journal articles that might help alleviate some of his anxiety about this?

Thanks and baby dust to all!

Coco
Quote
Share

Catherine
Catherine

June 28th, 2012, 8:48 pm #2

My MIL (born 1916) had her youngest child at 47. Natural, of course. She never developed any form of cancer before her death at age 94.I think your risks with DE are probably lower than your risks with OE, as you don't take the high stims, you only take fairly low dose esrogen meds to build your lining and progesterone to maintain a pregnancy until week 12. Good luck, I hope you are one of the lucky ones for whom it works first time ( like me).
Quote
Share

Catherine
Catherine

June 28th, 2012, 8:49 pm #3

Pg ment above nm
Quote
Share

Joined: September 13th, 2008, 5:13 pm

June 28th, 2012, 8:59 pm #4

Hello Ladies,

I am looking for specific information on carrying a child via DE. I am 45, healthy (height/weight appropriate, low bp, no medications or medical issues etc) and hoping to have a child via DE.

My husband is very concerned with risks associated with carrying a child at the age of 45. I called my ob/gyn who said if my health is good,and the egg is healthy (and young) that I shouldn't have any risks that a younger woman wouldn't have to deal with, with the expection of having a very slightly higher risk for high bp (but just a hair more risk).

DH brought up an elevated risk of BC due to the estrogen/progesterone I would have to take. My understanding is that the hormones are so short term that there is no real risk, but I can't find stats to back this assertion up.

Are there web-sites or journal articles that might help alleviate some of his anxiety about this?

Thanks and baby dust to all!

Coco
There are still a fair number of women conceiving naturally, so you're sort of at the edges, but not beyond the age of natural childbearing. DH probably doesn't realize that b/c birth control and abortion have largely done away with unwanted mid-life pregnancies, which most were in the past. And the real issue is maternal health. Yeah, there are a few issues peculiar to age, but overall maternal health really trumps that. I just don't have a Web site to prove it (others?). DH is afraid of losing you, so he's apprehensive, but he really needs to listen to your doctor.

There is a good bit of speculation about increased risk of breast cancer around the hormone treatment, but as you say, it is quite short term.

Like you, at 47-48, I was normal weight, low BP, no major medical problems. I conceived twins w/DE and carried them with no major complications except for the hormones exacerbating my asthma (one of my fears about becoming pg when younger), worked till 35 weeks, and was induced at 37 wks 5d. when, yeah, my BP spiked. Ended up having a c-section when I wouldn't dilate. In contrast, plenty of younger women in my local Moms of Multiples group had serious complications related to their health, some requiring hospitalization (and I'm not talking about premature deliveries and problems related just to the babies' health; that's a whole bunch more).

Good luck!

Maggie (in VA)
Quote
Like
Share

Dee
Dee

June 28th, 2012, 10:26 pm #5

Hello Ladies,

I am looking for specific information on carrying a child via DE. I am 45, healthy (height/weight appropriate, low bp, no medications or medical issues etc) and hoping to have a child via DE.

My husband is very concerned with risks associated with carrying a child at the age of 45. I called my ob/gyn who said if my health is good,and the egg is healthy (and young) that I shouldn't have any risks that a younger woman wouldn't have to deal with, with the expection of having a very slightly higher risk for high bp (but just a hair more risk).

DH brought up an elevated risk of BC due to the estrogen/progesterone I would have to take. My understanding is that the hormones are so short term that there is no real risk, but I can't find stats to back this assertion up.

Are there web-sites or journal articles that might help alleviate some of his anxiety about this?

Thanks and baby dust to all!

Coco
If you just did one DE cycle, I doubt there is any elevated risk of cancer.

In my situation, though, I am on my sixth DE cycle so I am somewhat concerned about the cancer risks of taking estrace.
Quote
Share

Joined: August 6th, 2011, 6:43 am

June 28th, 2012, 11:07 pm #6

Hello Ladies,

I am looking for specific information on carrying a child via DE. I am 45, healthy (height/weight appropriate, low bp, no medications or medical issues etc) and hoping to have a child via DE.

My husband is very concerned with risks associated with carrying a child at the age of 45. I called my ob/gyn who said if my health is good,and the egg is healthy (and young) that I shouldn't have any risks that a younger woman wouldn't have to deal with, with the expection of having a very slightly higher risk for high bp (but just a hair more risk).

DH brought up an elevated risk of BC due to the estrogen/progesterone I would have to take. My understanding is that the hormones are so short term that there is no real risk, but I can't find stats to back this assertion up.

Are there web-sites or journal articles that might help alleviate some of his anxiety about this?

Thanks and baby dust to all!

Coco
I just had my baby at 44.5. I know they consider it riskier to have a baby when you are older but that is probably because the average woman may be less healthy than a younger woman. Like you, I was already healthy when I started the process, low blood pressure, healthy weight, no medications, etc. I did not have any complications with my pregnancy other than the normal annoying symptoms of heartburn and slower digestion. I had an easy delivery as well, as far as childbirth goes. I think your doctor is correct. You will be much more closely monitored during your pregnany because of your age. The doctors will check your blood pressure more frequently.

I also don't think the estrogen and progesterone support during the DE cycle is very significant. It is not the same as if you were doing an IVF cycle with your OE. So I don't think it will be a problem either.

My recovery from childbirth took longer than when I had a baby at thirty. I believe this was mostly due to my hormones related to my age. It took me 2.5 months to feel ok in my girly parts which was very frustrating.

My friend also just had a baby naturally conceived on accident and gave birth at 44. She also did not have any complications.

I hope this helps a little. As long as you have good medical care I think you will be just fine. . Oh, and only transfer one embryo. Twins would be riskier.
Quote
Like
Share

CocoBoston
CocoBoston

June 28th, 2012, 11:29 pm #7

My MIL (born 1916) had her youngest child at 47. Natural, of course. She never developed any form of cancer before her death at age 94.I think your risks with DE are probably lower than your risks with OE, as you don't take the high stims, you only take fairly low dose esrogen meds to build your lining and progesterone to maintain a pregnancy until week 12. Good luck, I hope you are one of the lucky ones for whom it works first time ( like me).
Thanks Catherine (end of msg)
Quote
Share

CocoBoston
CocoBoston

June 29th, 2012, 12:10 am #8

There are still a fair number of women conceiving naturally, so you're sort of at the edges, but not beyond the age of natural childbearing. DH probably doesn't realize that b/c birth control and abortion have largely done away with unwanted mid-life pregnancies, which most were in the past. And the real issue is maternal health. Yeah, there are a few issues peculiar to age, but overall maternal health really trumps that. I just don't have a Web site to prove it (others?). DH is afraid of losing you, so he's apprehensive, but he really needs to listen to your doctor.

There is a good bit of speculation about increased risk of breast cancer around the hormone treatment, but as you say, it is quite short term.

Like you, at 47-48, I was normal weight, low BP, no major medical problems. I conceived twins w/DE and carried them with no major complications except for the hormones exacerbating my asthma (one of my fears about becoming pg when younger), worked till 35 weeks, and was induced at 37 wks 5d. when, yeah, my BP spiked. Ended up having a c-section when I wouldn't dilate. In contrast, plenty of younger women in my local Moms of Multiples group had serious complications related to their health, some requiring hospitalization (and I'm not talking about premature deliveries and problems related just to the babies' health; that's a whole bunch more).

Good luck!

Maggie (in VA)
Thanks Maggie (end of msg)
Quote
Share

CocoBoston
CocoBoston

June 29th, 2012, 12:24 am #9

If you just did one DE cycle, I doubt there is any elevated risk of cancer.

In my situation, though, I am on my sixth DE cycle so I am somewhat concerned about the cancer risks of taking estrace.
I've done 3 stim OE cycles and it went through my head also. I think the real risk is (was?) w/ women taking hormones long term (over years) as part of HRT, as was the case with women treated for menopause with estrogen in the 90s...but I do hear you Dee...
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

June 29th, 2012, 12:29 am #10

I just had my baby at 44.5. I know they consider it riskier to have a baby when you are older but that is probably because the average woman may be less healthy than a younger woman. Like you, I was already healthy when I started the process, low blood pressure, healthy weight, no medications, etc. I did not have any complications with my pregnancy other than the normal annoying symptoms of heartburn and slower digestion. I had an easy delivery as well, as far as childbirth goes. I think your doctor is correct. You will be much more closely monitored during your pregnany because of your age. The doctors will check your blood pressure more frequently.

I also don't think the estrogen and progesterone support during the DE cycle is very significant. It is not the same as if you were doing an IVF cycle with your OE. So I don't think it will be a problem either.

My recovery from childbirth took longer than when I had a baby at thirty. I believe this was mostly due to my hormones related to my age. It took me 2.5 months to feel ok in my girly parts which was very frustrating.

My friend also just had a baby naturally conceived on accident and gave birth at 44. She also did not have any complications.

I hope this helps a little. As long as you have good medical care I think you will be just fine. . Oh, and only transfer one embryo. Twins would be riskier.
Thank you for the kind words Raindrops1. I know - my best friend got pg at 46 **by accident** (which was very very hard to hear) during a casual hook-up. Another dear friend shocked me by telling me that her mom was 48 when she had her in the late 60s - it totally blew my mind. As Maggie from VA says, it does happen - but (long story short) that won't work for me. I'm just hoping DH agrees it will be safe enough to pursue!
Quote
Share