CF and Pregnancy: It's Do-able, but it's still a high-risk proposition for many women

lightNlife

New member
I moved this topic from the original thread so that it would not derail Irishgirl's questions about IV vitamins. I'm sure it's not secret to many that my husband and I chose not to have children. As a scientist and a former researcher and data analyst, I have brought a lot to bear on that decision. From a scientific standpoint, the odds of having a successful pregnancy are simply NOT in some CFers' favor. Of course, new data is being collected all the time, and someday pregnancy with CF might not be as risky as it is today. In the meantime, there are so many factors that need to come together "just right" in order for the pregnancy to proceed without dire consequence for mother and child.

I also know this first hand having endured a painful, failed pregnancy. If anyone wishes to accuse me of being bitter or any some such nonsense, please take it up with me personally through PM. Please take this information about CF and pregnancy for what it is. I do not begrudge anyone their right to make their own decisions. I'm just attempting to put some factual evidence out there for anyone who may need to weigh the realistic information against the emotions of wanting to get pregnant.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>

I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote></div>


That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.

</b>

Even with this Seattle data (which I'm further studying in an attempt to compare it with other national data. My apologies for not explaining all my assumptions at the get-go. I'm not explaining my calculations well enough, so I'm going back over what I've got and rethinking it. Thanks Caroline for the help!

This is a subject that is very difficult for researchers to track. Afterall, it's only been within the last several years that more and more patients with CF are reaching adulthood and having the opportunity to become parents. At this point though, the odds are, disappointingly, NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Although people beat the statistics on occasion, for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing in the interest of self-preservation, and not procreate at this time. All else being equal, adoption may be the better choice for couples who are affected by CF desiring to parent a child.

Perhaps as more treatments options become available, and young women are able to reach and maintain a steady BMI of 22, along with a prolonged FEV1 of greater than 80%, pregnancy will no longer be the high risk for us that it currently is.
 

lightNlife

New member
I moved this topic from the original thread so that it would not derail Irishgirl's questions about IV vitamins. I'm sure it's not secret to many that my husband and I chose not to have children. As a scientist and a former researcher and data analyst, I have brought a lot to bear on that decision. From a scientific standpoint, the odds of having a successful pregnancy are simply NOT in some CFers' favor. Of course, new data is being collected all the time, and someday pregnancy with CF might not be as risky as it is today. In the meantime, there are so many factors that need to come together "just right" in order for the pregnancy to proceed without dire consequence for mother and child.

I also know this first hand having endured a painful, failed pregnancy. If anyone wishes to accuse me of being bitter or any some such nonsense, please take it up with me personally through PM. Please take this information about CF and pregnancy for what it is. I do not begrudge anyone their right to make their own decisions. I'm just attempting to put some factual evidence out there for anyone who may need to weigh the realistic information against the emotions of wanting to get pregnant.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>

I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote></div>


That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.

</b>

Even with this Seattle data (which I'm further studying in an attempt to compare it with other national data. My apologies for not explaining all my assumptions at the get-go. I'm not explaining my calculations well enough, so I'm going back over what I've got and rethinking it. Thanks Caroline for the help!

This is a subject that is very difficult for researchers to track. Afterall, it's only been within the last several years that more and more patients with CF are reaching adulthood and having the opportunity to become parents. At this point though, the odds are, disappointingly, NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Although people beat the statistics on occasion, for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing in the interest of self-preservation, and not procreate at this time. All else being equal, adoption may be the better choice for couples who are affected by CF desiring to parent a child.

Perhaps as more treatments options become available, and young women are able to reach and maintain a steady BMI of 22, along with a prolonged FEV1 of greater than 80%, pregnancy will no longer be the high risk for us that it currently is.
 

lightNlife

New member
I moved this topic from the original thread so that it would not derail Irishgirl's questions about IV vitamins. I'm sure it's not secret to many that my husband and I chose not to have children. As a scientist and a former researcher and data analyst, I have brought a lot to bear on that decision. From a scientific standpoint, the odds of having a successful pregnancy are simply NOT in some CFers' favor. Of course, new data is being collected all the time, and someday pregnancy with CF might not be as risky as it is today. In the meantime, there are so many factors that need to come together "just right" in order for the pregnancy to proceed without dire consequence for mother and child.

I also know this first hand having endured a painful, failed pregnancy. If anyone wishes to accuse me of being bitter or any some such nonsense, please take it up with me personally through PM. Please take this information about CF and pregnancy for what it is. I do not begrudge anyone their right to make their own decisions. I'm just attempting to put some factual evidence out there for anyone who may need to weigh the realistic information against the emotions of wanting to get pregnant.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>

I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote></div>


That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.

</b>

Even with this Seattle data (which I'm further studying in an attempt to compare it with other national data. My apologies for not explaining all my assumptions at the get-go. I'm not explaining my calculations well enough, so I'm going back over what I've got and rethinking it. Thanks Caroline for the help!

This is a subject that is very difficult for researchers to track. Afterall, it's only been within the last several years that more and more patients with CF are reaching adulthood and having the opportunity to become parents. At this point though, the odds are, disappointingly, NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Although people beat the statistics on occasion, for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing in the interest of self-preservation, and not procreate at this time. All else being equal, adoption may be the better choice for couples who are affected by CF desiring to parent a child.

Perhaps as more treatments options become available, and young women are able to reach and maintain a steady BMI of 22, along with a prolonged FEV1 of greater than 80%, pregnancy will no longer be the high risk for us that it currently is.
 

lightNlife

New member
I moved this topic from the original thread so that it would not derail Irishgirl's questions about IV vitamins. I'm sure it's not secret to many that my husband and I chose not to have children. As a scientist and a former researcher and data analyst, I have brought a lot to bear on that decision. From a scientific standpoint, the odds of having a successful pregnancy are simply NOT in some CFers' favor. Of course, new data is being collected all the time, and someday pregnancy with CF might not be as risky as it is today. In the meantime, there are so many factors that need to come together "just right" in order for the pregnancy to proceed without dire consequence for mother and child.

I also know this first hand having endured a painful, failed pregnancy. If anyone wishes to accuse me of being bitter or any some such nonsense, please take it up with me personally through PM. Please take this information about CF and pregnancy for what it is. I do not begrudge anyone their right to make their own decisions. I'm just attempting to put some factual evidence out there for anyone who may need to weigh the realistic information against the emotions of wanting to get pregnant.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>

I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote>


That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.

</b>

Even with this Seattle data (which I'm further studying in an attempt to compare it with other national data. My apologies for not explaining all my assumptions at the get-go. I'm not explaining my calculations well enough, so I'm going back over what I've got and rethinking it. Thanks Caroline for the help!

This is a subject that is very difficult for researchers to track. Afterall, it's only been within the last several years that more and more patients with CF are reaching adulthood and having the opportunity to become parents. At this point though, the odds are, disappointingly, NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Although people beat the statistics on occasion, for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing in the interest of self-preservation, and not procreate at this time. All else being equal, adoption may be the better choice for couples who are affected by CF desiring to parent a child.

Perhaps as more treatments options become available, and young women are able to reach and maintain a steady BMI of 22, along with a prolonged FEV1 of greater than 80%, pregnancy will no longer be the high risk for us that it currently is.
 

lightNlife

New member
I moved this topic from the original thread so that it would not derail Irishgirl's questions about IV vitamins. I'm sure it's not secret to many that my husband and I chose not to have children. As a scientist and a former researcher and data analyst, I have brought a lot to bear on that decision. From a scientific standpoint, the odds of having a successful pregnancy are simply NOT in some CFers' favor. Of course, new data is being collected all the time, and someday pregnancy with CF might not be as risky as it is today. In the meantime, there are so many factors that need to come together "just right" in order for the pregnancy to proceed without dire consequence for mother and child.

I also know this first hand having endured a painful, failed pregnancy. If anyone wishes to accuse me of being bitter or any some such nonsense, please take it up with me personally through PM. Please take this information about CF and pregnancy for what it is. I do not begrudge anyone their right to make their own decisions. I'm just attempting to put some factual evidence out there for anyone who may need to weigh the realistic information against the emotions of wanting to get pregnant.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>

I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote>


That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.

</b>

Even with this Seattle data (which I'm further studying in an attempt to compare it with other national data. My apologies for not explaining all my assumptions at the get-go. I'm not explaining my calculations well enough, so I'm going back over what I've got and rethinking it. Thanks Caroline for the help!

This is a subject that is very difficult for researchers to track. Afterall, it's only been within the last several years that more and more patients with CF are reaching adulthood and having the opportunity to become parents. At this point though, the odds are, disappointingly, NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Although people beat the statistics on occasion, for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing in the interest of self-preservation, and not procreate at this time. All else being equal, adoption may be the better choice for couples who are affected by CF desiring to parent a child.

Perhaps as more treatments options become available, and young women are able to reach and maintain a steady BMI of 22, along with a prolonged FEV1 of greater than 80%, pregnancy will no longer be the high risk for us that it currently is.
 

wanderlost

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>lightNlife</b></i>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>



I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote></div>





That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.



</b>



So yes, that does improve the odds compared to 5 in 200, but the comparison demonstrates that less than 10% resulted in live births (8.3% to be exact). When you factor in the odds that nearly 1 in 4 healthy women may miscarry, it only serves to magnify the point that women with CF are by and large NOT HEALTHY ENOUGH to sustain a pregnancy. This is especially true of women whose BMI is low and who have an FEV1 of less than 80%.



The odds are NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Yes, people beat the statistics on occasion, but for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing and not procreate.</end quote></div>

but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.
 

wanderlost

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>lightNlife</b></i>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>



I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote></div>





That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.



</b>



So yes, that does improve the odds compared to 5 in 200, but the comparison demonstrates that less than 10% resulted in live births (8.3% to be exact). When you factor in the odds that nearly 1 in 4 healthy women may miscarry, it only serves to magnify the point that women with CF are by and large NOT HEALTHY ENOUGH to sustain a pregnancy. This is especially true of women whose BMI is low and who have an FEV1 of less than 80%.



The odds are NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Yes, people beat the statistics on occasion, but for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing and not procreate.</end quote></div>

but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.
 

wanderlost

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>lightNlife</b></i>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>



I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote></div>





That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.



</b>



So yes, that does improve the odds compared to 5 in 200, but the comparison demonstrates that less than 10% resulted in live births (8.3% to be exact). When you factor in the odds that nearly 1 in 4 healthy women may miscarry, it only serves to magnify the point that women with CF are by and large NOT HEALTHY ENOUGH to sustain a pregnancy. This is especially true of women whose BMI is low and who have an FEV1 of less than 80%.



The odds are NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Yes, people beat the statistics on occasion, but for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing and not procreate.</end quote></div>

but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.
 

wanderlost

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>lightNlife</b></i>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>



I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote>





That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.



</b>



So yes, that does improve the odds compared to 5 in 200, but the comparison demonstrates that less than 10% resulted in live births (8.3% to be exact). When you factor in the odds that nearly 1 in 4 healthy women may miscarry, it only serves to magnify the point that women with CF are by and large NOT HEALTHY ENOUGH to sustain a pregnancy. This is especially true of women whose BMI is low and who have an FEV1 of less than 80%.



The odds are NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Yes, people beat the statistics on occasion, but for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing and not procreate.</end quote>

but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.
 

wanderlost

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>lightNlife</b></i>

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Keepercjr</b></i>



I found this study from the CF center in Seattle that had 43 pregnancies resulting in 36 live births between 1989 and 2004. Those are much better odds than 5 out of 200 pregnancies. <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16650742">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...eve&list_uids=16650742</a></end quote>





That means there were 36 live births in a period of <b>15</b> years. That's an average of <b>less than 3 births per year.



</b>



So yes, that does improve the odds compared to 5 in 200, but the comparison demonstrates that less than 10% resulted in live births (8.3% to be exact). When you factor in the odds that nearly 1 in 4 healthy women may miscarry, it only serves to magnify the point that women with CF are by and large NOT HEALTHY ENOUGH to sustain a pregnancy. This is especially true of women whose BMI is low and who have an FEV1 of less than 80%.



The odds are NOT in favor of women with CF being pregnant. Yes, people beat the statistics on occasion, but for many women, the reality of the danger of pregnancy prompts them to do the responsible thing and not procreate.</end quote>

but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.
 

lightNlife

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>


but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.</end quote></div>

There are "silent" miscarriage that are in fact, related to the mother's health.

The early miscarriages you are referring to are perhaps those occurring before 13 weeks of gestation. Genetic problems results in miscarriage are more prevalent in the older population (age 40+). Younger women who miscarry, especially CFers, are quite often not nutritionally stable to support a pregnancy. Their health, and the health of the fetus suffers.

Your argument about premature birth would only apply to miscarriages that happen in the 2nd trimester.

NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) which many CFers use to reduce lung inflammation have been linked to miscarriage.
 

lightNlife

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>


but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.</end quote></div>

There are "silent" miscarriage that are in fact, related to the mother's health.

The early miscarriages you are referring to are perhaps those occurring before 13 weeks of gestation. Genetic problems results in miscarriage are more prevalent in the older population (age 40+). Younger women who miscarry, especially CFers, are quite often not nutritionally stable to support a pregnancy. Their health, and the health of the fetus suffers.

Your argument about premature birth would only apply to miscarriages that happen in the 2nd trimester.

NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) which many CFers use to reduce lung inflammation have been linked to miscarriage.
 

lightNlife

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>


but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.</end quote></div>

There are "silent" miscarriage that are in fact, related to the mother's health.

The early miscarriages you are referring to are perhaps those occurring before 13 weeks of gestation. Genetic problems results in miscarriage are more prevalent in the older population (age 40+). Younger women who miscarry, especially CFers, are quite often not nutritionally stable to support a pregnancy. Their health, and the health of the fetus suffers.

Your argument about premature birth would only apply to miscarriages that happen in the 2nd trimester.

NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) which many CFers use to reduce lung inflammation have been linked to miscarriage.
 

lightNlife

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>


but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.</end quote>

There are "silent" miscarriage that are in fact, related to the mother's health.

The early miscarriages you are referring to are perhaps those occurring before 13 weeks of gestation. Genetic problems results in miscarriage are more prevalent in the older population (age 40+). Younger women who miscarry, especially CFers, are quite often not nutritionally stable to support a pregnancy. Their health, and the health of the fetus suffers.

Your argument about premature birth would only apply to miscarriages that happen in the 2nd trimester.

NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) which many CFers use to reduce lung inflammation have been linked to miscarriage.
 

lightNlife

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>


but early miscarriage rates (1 in 4) usually have nothing to do with mom's health and are due to genetic abnormalities. To relate it to Cf one would need look more at premature birth resulting in fetal death as related to mother's health.</end quote>

There are "silent" miscarriage that are in fact, related to the mother's health.

The early miscarriages you are referring to are perhaps those occurring before 13 weeks of gestation. Genetic problems results in miscarriage are more prevalent in the older population (age 40+). Younger women who miscarry, especially CFers, are quite often not nutritionally stable to support a pregnancy. Their health, and the health of the fetus suffers.

Your argument about premature birth would only apply to miscarriages that happen in the 2nd trimester.

NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) which many CFers use to reduce lung inflammation have been linked to miscarriage.
 

AnD

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

Okay, my 2 cents, regarding the Cff registry numbers:

First, <i>you have to register with them to be included in the numbers</i>. So if you had a baby in 2005, and weren't registered with them, then you weren't counted, whether you go to an accredited center or not.

Secondly, they reported 196 pregnancies in women aged 13 to 45, and 1.9 live births. It doesn't say what month this was reported in (Jan.? Dec.?), so there is no data on how the other 194 pregnancies ended up. Obviously, with a number like 1.9, there are some other numbers we aren't getting in the report. And no statistics about which pregnacies ended in spontaneous miscarriage prior to viability or a selected abortion, and whether that was based on medical necessity vs. personal decision.

The registry info is just a starting point to start gathering information.
We need better statistics on which to base such an important decision. Things like BMI, FEV1 (before and after), CFRD, gestational diabetes, type of bacteria(s)cultured, etc....
 

AnD

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

Okay, my 2 cents, regarding the Cff registry numbers:

First, <i>you have to register with them to be included in the numbers</i>. So if you had a baby in 2005, and weren't registered with them, then you weren't counted, whether you go to an accredited center or not.

Secondly, they reported 196 pregnancies in women aged 13 to 45, and 1.9 live births. It doesn't say what month this was reported in (Jan.? Dec.?), so there is no data on how the other 194 pregnancies ended up. Obviously, with a number like 1.9, there are some other numbers we aren't getting in the report. And no statistics about which pregnacies ended in spontaneous miscarriage prior to viability or a selected abortion, and whether that was based on medical necessity vs. personal decision.

The registry info is just a starting point to start gathering information.
We need better statistics on which to base such an important decision. Things like BMI, FEV1 (before and after), CFRD, gestational diabetes, type of bacteria(s)cultured, etc....
 

AnD

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

Okay, my 2 cents, regarding the Cff registry numbers:

First, <i>you have to register with them to be included in the numbers</i>. So if you had a baby in 2005, and weren't registered with them, then you weren't counted, whether you go to an accredited center or not.

Secondly, they reported 196 pregnancies in women aged 13 to 45, and 1.9 live births. It doesn't say what month this was reported in (Jan.? Dec.?), so there is no data on how the other 194 pregnancies ended up. Obviously, with a number like 1.9, there are some other numbers we aren't getting in the report. And no statistics about which pregnacies ended in spontaneous miscarriage prior to viability or a selected abortion, and whether that was based on medical necessity vs. personal decision.

The registry info is just a starting point to start gathering information.
We need better statistics on which to base such an important decision. Things like BMI, FEV1 (before and after), CFRD, gestational diabetes, type of bacteria(s)cultured, etc....
 

AnD

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

Okay, my 2 cents, regarding the Cff registry numbers:

First, <i>you have to register with them to be included in the numbers</i>. So if you had a baby in 2005, and weren't registered with them, then you weren't counted, whether you go to an accredited center or not.

Secondly, they reported 196 pregnancies in women aged 13 to 45, and 1.9 live births. It doesn't say what month this was reported in (Jan.? Dec.?), so there is no data on how the other 194 pregnancies ended up. Obviously, with a number like 1.9, there are some other numbers we aren't getting in the report. And no statistics about which pregnacies ended in spontaneous miscarriage prior to viability or a selected abortion, and whether that was based on medical necessity vs. personal decision.

The registry info is just a starting point to start gathering information.
We need better statistics on which to base such an important decision. Things like BMI, FEV1 (before and after), CFRD, gestational diabetes, type of bacteria(s)cultured, etc....
 

AnD

New member
Odds of a Successful Pregnancy

Okay, my 2 cents, regarding the Cff registry numbers:

First, <i>you have to register with them to be included in the numbers</i>. So if you had a baby in 2005, and weren't registered with them, then you weren't counted, whether you go to an accredited center or not.

Secondly, they reported 196 pregnancies in women aged 13 to 45, and 1.9 live births. It doesn't say what month this was reported in (Jan.? Dec.?), so there is no data on how the other 194 pregnancies ended up. Obviously, with a number like 1.9, there are some other numbers we aren't getting in the report. And no statistics about which pregnacies ended in spontaneous miscarriage prior to viability or a selected abortion, and whether that was based on medical necessity vs. personal decision.

The registry info is just a starting point to start gathering information.
We need better statistics on which to base such an important decision. Things like BMI, FEV1 (before and after), CFRD, gestational diabetes, type of bacteria(s)cultured, etc....
 
Top