Ok you ladies interested in this super fertility argument let me fill you in on my day. My mind is racing with all this new information but I’ll try to get the gist down here in a way that’s hopefully legible!
Today I had my follow up appointment (previous appointment discussed here) to investigate NK cells in my womb lining with a biopsy and to discuss the suggested prognosis that I am someone who is “super fertile”. I will go into the NK cells in another post I think because this super fertile thing has got me all riled up.
The idea of super fertility suggests that the womb is overly receptive to embryos but is not selective enough. It allows embryos that aren’t developing properly to implant. This results in miscarriage.
When I first heard this idea I thought, great does that mean we’ve produced no good embryos in nearly 3 years? Are all of them destined to be chromosomally abnormal? That could mean huge money in PGD IVF etc.
Apparently not. And apologies for paraphrasing in my lay woman’s lingo, it was difficult to keep up with this guy. He knows so much and was throwing these amazing ideas at me non-stop. I was also all by myself because hubby couldn’t get away from work to be there today. A lot of notes to take, a lot to digest!
So it was explained to me that no not all our embryos are shit. Some are more flawed like our last loss (triploid) but that is a random occurrence. He questioned why the womb allows a deficient embryo to implant at all. A process called decidualisation, the cells tailored response to abnormal embryos, is not occurring.
He carried on to say that actually most embryos are formed with some element of abnormal chromosomes in it. With a selective nurturing environment the womb knows how to respond to enable the healthy chromosomes to take over and flourish. In a womb that isn’t functioning as it should this step is missed and subsequently this allows the abnormal cells to grow further which results in miscarriage.
This struck a chord in me. No one, out of all the 8+ consultants we’ve seen so far, has been able to explain this to me. Allow me to clarify. For our first four implanted little embryos I never got my BFP until 5 weeks or later, then a few days or weeks later I would miscarry. My hcg rose too late. This I’ve learned today is a sign of an impending miscarriage, the late rise of hcg. But the late rise of hcg is also indicative that the critical stage, at what is meant to be day 21-23, when the embryo and lining make contact and suss each other out, is delayed, resulting in late implantation. This isn’t supportive of the embryo and the selection process that should occur wasn’t given the appropriate chance to do so and the womb begins to shed its lining because it’s all confused and voila. Loss of pregnancy.
When I asked other consultants about why I might be getting late BFPs and could that have anything to do with a slow rise in hcg I was told I was delusional. One RMC consultant told me I was just getting multiple false positives and to go get donor eggs because I was clearly too old for this.
I feel a huge relief that at last someone can potentially account for our losses. Even down to the details! It is something I can buy into. For now anyway. And when I reread my notes I can see how much sense it makes.
So to break it down here are the main observations for women with recurrent early pregnancy loss like mine explained as super fertility, as far as it was explained to me:
1) they fall pregnant easily
2) embryos that shouldn’t implant are implanting. Why? Flawed process of womb preparation
3) high quality embryos without a good response are not adequately supported
Crazy huh? I find this fascinating and so unlike anything I’ve heard from other clinics. I have so much more to say but your eyes are no doubt drying out from reading all this crap so I will continue the details tomorrow. Thanks for reading today