subchorionic hemorrhage

Has anyone here done any research on subchorionic hemorrhage in the first
trimester? Apparently, I have one. It's clinically silent (there were no
suspicious symptoms like vaginal bleeding or whatever) and was detected
incidentally during the nuchal translucency scan. The perinatologist said
it was "small," and called it "an incidental finding with no association
with pregnancy loss at all," and said to go about my normal routines and
try not to worry because it was insignificant.

Of course, my response was not to not worry but rather to worry and try to
do some research. I'm not finding much to support what he said, though,
and I'm making myself more worried. Anyone have any thoughts?


--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
Has anyone here done any research on subchorionic hemorrhage in the first
trimester? Apparently, I have one. It's clinically silent (there were no
suspicious symptoms like vaginal bleeding or whatever) and was detected
incidentally during the nuchal translucency scan. The perinatologist said
it was "small," and called it "an incidental finding with no association
with pregnancy loss at all," and said to go about my normal routines and
try not to worry because it was insignificant.

Of course, my response was not to not worry but rather to worry and try to
do some research. I'm not finding much to support what he said, though,
and I'm making myself more worried. Anyone have any thoughts?


I had one in my last pregnancy, discovered at week 10 when I began bleeding
and cramping. I was convinced I was MCing, but it was the subbchorionic
hemorrhage. I spotted for the next 6 weeks or so, and the baby was fine.
Meanwhile, I made myself nuts reading about it on the net, because there was
plenty of information out there that scared me quite a bit. My midwife
didn't make a real big fuss about it. Initially she recommended pelvic
rest, and when it kept bleeding she reco'd even less activity and to cut
down on nursing. Sorry if this post isn't all that helpful, but at least I
can offer reassurance that even with bleeding, my daughter was absolutely
fine. I did have other complications later in the pregnancy, but everyone
believed them to be unrelated.

Nancy

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 00:17:01 +0000 (UTC), (Hillary
Israeli) wrote:

Has anyone here done any research on subchorionic hemorrhage in the first
trimester? Apparently, I have one. It's clinically silent (there were no
suspicious symptoms like vaginal bleeding or whatever) and was detected
incidentally during the nuchal translucency scan. The perinatologist said
it was "small," and called it "an incidental finding with no association
with pregnancy loss at all," and said to go about my normal routines and
try not to worry because it was insignificant.

Of course, my response was not to not worry but rather to worry and try to
do some research. I'm not finding much to support what he said, though,
and I'm making myself more worried. Anyone have any thoughts?

I did some research when I had one with Mischief. The main
information I read was that it depends on the size of the hemorrhage,
the position, and which trimester it is found during. Mine was found
due to bleeding at around 6.5/7 weeks and was quite large, this is
associated with miscarriage in about 45% of cases. It is also
associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. During the second
and third trimesters it is a lot less of a problem especially if there
is no vaginal bleeding. Usually the ones that are a problem are those
located between the placenta and the uterine wall and I expect that
since you were told it's clinically insignificant yours is not in a
dangerous position.

Hope that helps. If you're still worried you can email me and I'll
see if I can drag up the stuff I looked at two years ago.


--
Cheryl
Mum to Shrimp (11 Mar 99), Thud (4 Oct 00)
Mischief (30 Jul 02)
+ someone new due Feb 05

In ,
Cheryl wrote:

*associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. During the second
*and third trimesters it is a lot less of a problem especially if there
*is no vaginal bleeding. Usually the ones that are a problem are those
*located between the placenta and the uterine wall and I expect that
*since you were told it's clinically insignificant yours is not in a
*dangerous position.

Well, mine was found during a u/s at 11 w 2 d, which is obviously first
trimester. The doctor said it was an insignificant finding of "just some
bleeding which occurred here," to which I replied "you mean it's a
subchorionic hemorrhage?" and he said "exactly," - so I assume it's NOT
retroplacental, but I would have to see his actual referral letter to my
OB to be sure. I was so scatterbrained at the time, I'm ****ed i didn't
ask about it. I am trying not to worry though since he said it was nothing
and I haven't had any cramping or bleeding.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

(Hillary Israeli) wrote in message ...

Anyone have any thoughts?

First, congratulations! I didn't realize you were pregnant.

I can't give you any real research, I do know most of what is out
there is very doom and gloom.
I just have an anecdote.

I did have a SCH with my fourth child .I had significant clinical
symtoms including spotting, bleeding (which I had been doing since 5
weeks) and passing clots. At the u/s at 11 weeks after I passed the
clot they found a SCH along with a pool of old blood sitting over my
cervix AND a healthy 11 week fetus. The bleeding resolved in a few
weeks (with no action at all, no bed rest, no follow up u/s) and I
went on to have a healthy pregnancy and baby.

On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:39:47 +0000 (UTC), (Hillary
Israeli) wrote:

In ,
Cheryl wrote:

*associated with an increased risk of preterm birth. During the second
*and third trimesters it is a lot less of a problem especially if there
*is no vaginal bleeding. Usually the ones that are a problem are those
*located between the placenta and the uterine wall and I expect that
*since you were told it's clinically insignificant yours is not in a
*dangerous position.

Well, mine was found during a u/s at 11 w 2 d, which is obviously first
trimester. The doctor said it was an insignificant finding of "just some
bleeding which occurred here," to which I replied "you mean it's a
subchorionic hemorrhage?" and he said "exactly," - so I assume it's NOT
retroplacental, but I would have to see his actual referral letter to my
OB to be sure. I was so scatterbrained at the time, I'm ****ed i didn't
ask about it. I am trying not to worry though since he said it was nothing
and I haven't had any cramping or bleeding.

FWIW, and I know this is completely anecdotal, mine was discovered due
to bleeding, surrounded 2/3rds of the gestational sac at 6w5d and was
marked as a threatened miscarriage. I bled for several days every few
weeks and at 11w I was convinced I'd miscarried because there had been
so much blood that day. An ultrasound that day showed that it was
just the blood from the subchorionic hemorrhage bleeding out and by
the time I went for an ultrasound at 18-ish weeks there was only a
shadow of it left. Mischief was however born at 33w5d so the
connection with preterm birth might have helped cause that.

--
Cheryl
Mum to Shrimp (11 Mar 99), Thud (4 Oct 00)
Mischief (30 Jul 02)
+ someone new due Feb 05

(Hillary Israeli) wrote in message ...
Has anyone here done any research on subchorionic hemorrhage in the first
trimester? Apparently, I have one. It's clinically silent (there were no
suspicious symptoms like vaginal bleeding or whatever) and was detected
incidentally during the nuchal translucency scan. The perinatologist said
it was "small," and called it "an incidental finding with no association
with pregnancy loss at all," and said to go about my normal routines and
try not to worry because it was insignificant.

Of course, my response was not to not worry but rather to worry and try to
do some research. I'm not finding much to support what he said, though,
and I'm making myself more worried. Anyone have any thoughts?

I think "subchorionic hemorrhage" is a very broad term, used to cover
such a wide range of issues -- from teeny tiny tears to much more
significant tears resulting in heavy bleeding etc -- that it is hard
to apply reasearch to a personal situation. From the limited
information I have, it all depends on how big the tear is, how close
to the fetus it is & how much blood there is.

Personally, I experienced some very faint spotting at about 6 weeks
with this pregnancy (and promptly freaked out). I was going for an
ultrasound the next day anyway (history of ectopics) so while I was
there -- and after we had seen a heartbeat flickering away in there --
I asked the tech if she could see any reason for the spotting. She
didn't mention anything but as I perused my chart waiting for the
doctor later I saw that it was noted as a "tiny subchorionic
hemorrage". They can actually measure the dimensions of the things - I
can't remember all my measurements but it was like 1cm by something
less than 1cm.

Perhaps you can get the dimensions, they might be reassuringly small.
I wonder if your "incidental finding" is something that would have
gone unnoticed with less sophisticated imaging equipment. It is
amazing, the detail they can see on U/S.

Similarly to your situation, the doctor claimed this small SCH should
have no impact on my pregnancy. Sure enough the spotting never changed
from brown to red and faded away within a couple of days. I am super
paranoid, and I am on the lookout all the time for warning signs, but
am reassured by the fact that the spotting has gone away and I have
had no cramping.

Good luck!
Elle

In ,
Elle wrote:

*Perhaps you can get the dimensions, they might be reassuringly small.

The doc called it small. It does not look so small to me. It's the banana
shaped echolucency to the right of the bright white line to the right of
the baby in this pictu

http://www.hillary.net/11wkus-small.jpg

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 12:59:48 +0000 (UTC), (Hillary
Israeli) wrote:

In ,
Elle wrote:

*Perhaps you can get the dimensions, they might be reassuringly small.

The doc called it small. It does not look so small to me. It's the banana
shaped echolucency to the right of the bright white line to the right of
the baby in this pictu

http://www.hillary.net/11wkus-small.jpg

That does look bigger than small to me. But it's nowhere near the
baby or what I think is the edge of the placenta. It also doesn't
look like it's got any real depth to it so it is probably already
being reabsorbed.


--
Cheryl
Mum to Shrimp (11 Mar 99), Thud (4 Oct 00)
Mischief (30 Jul 02)
+ someone new due Feb 05