In article <7akvco$e3k$1 at flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
kevin-ault at uiowa.edu wrote:
> Two questions 1) what has your doctor told you about these titers? If
> you are not happy about his or her answers, did you ask for a second
> opinion? 2) Why were titers done in the first place? I am not aware
> of any recommendation from U.S. professional or governmental
> organizations advocating routine screening for CMV during pregnancy.
> Serological tests are notoriously inaccurate. Congenital CMV is a
> rare disease.
>>
My doctor told me that we will perform a second more detailed ultrasound. The
baby has already been screened with a standard ultrasound at his 6th month
and everything was normal. My doctor has not enough time to explain the thing
and make me understand. On the other side I want to evaluate if we are doing
the right thing ot we can do more. Here in Italy the titers are usually taken
the first time you get pregnant and if they are negative you dont take them
anymore. Since the IgM was negative but with some traces we performed further
tests to see if the titers we going up or down. For what I learned in the
web, it seems that if the virus has reached the baby it happened in the first
two weeks of pregnancy. In this rare case the effects would be so high that a
spontaneous abortion occurs. Since the baby is in good shape, it seems (!!),
I hope that everything is going well. I don't know, other people are
suggesting to perform a PCR in the first weeks after birth with urine or
blood samples of the baby to look for IgM and before he will get exposed
externally. As you know if you get exposed after birth no problems will
occur. If you are congenitally exposed you could be fine at the beginning but
at a two or more years you may develop hearing loss or worse problems.There
are tretments like ganciclovir and others that may help to reduce the
effects.
thank you,
Marco
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
