• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

Eye Screening - can anyone explain this weird logic?

Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
B

Babysaurus

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
Last week I had my eyes screened as I am 8 months pregnant (they do it every trimester then, rather than annually.) I have been naughty and not been previously to the ante natal eye screening, so this was the first time.

I had the screening and I have no signs of retinopathy whatsoever, and the doc said this was 'remarkable' considering I have been a Type 1 for 32 years. He then told me to come back in three months.

I am due to have a baby in two months so explained that really this was probably not going to be convenient and, as there was no issues whatsoever I'd prefer to go back to the annual checks at my GP's surgery (I don't drive and the hospital is 9 miles away via train and then walking.) He looked at me gravely and patiently explained (ie slightly patronisingly) that there was still a risk of 'serious retinopathy' and I would be 'foolish to cancel' and just have an annual check instead (which can obviously arranged at my convenience, so say in about 5 or 6 months.)
This, frankly, sounds like a load of arse.

What does everyone else think....?
 
I agree, it does sound a bit odd! I didn't have any further screenings after pregnancy, apart from my usual annual ones and given that you don't have any signs of retinopathy I don't see why you would need to either (unless you develop pre-eclampsia and then it would be very wise for you to do so).

We didn't have the regular screenings during pregnancy with DD1 who I did have pre-eclampsia with, and the photos at my next screening showed the pre-eclampsia up clearly as the high BP left my vessels all wiggly!
 
Babysaurus said:
This, frankly, sounds like a load of arse.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have put it better myself 😉

If you've got no signs of retinopathy I see no reason why yearly checks won't be sufficient as long as your levels stay good.
 
That hoo hah of an appointment with a newborn baby in tow... Hmmmmm!

I'm not sure what the progression rate is, but if you have 'mild' or 'background' changes they keep with 12 month appointments, so if all clear at the moment it does sound odd!
 
Imo

Babysaurus said:
Last week I had my eyes screened as I am 8 months pregnant (they do it every trimester then, rather than annually.) I have been naughty and not been previously to the ante natal eye screening, so this was the first time.

I had the screening and I have no signs of retinopathy whatsoever, and the doc said this was 'remarkable' considering I have been a Type 1 for 32 years. He 0 He looked at me gravely and patiently explained (ie slightly patronisingly) that there was still a risk of 'serious retinopathy' and I would be 'foolish to cancel' and just have an annual check instead (which, frankly, sounds like a load of arse.

What does everyone else think....?
Click to expand...

The Doc is right. Retinopathy can accelerate dramatically during pregnancy. The particular danger period coming after 30 weeks. IMO you should keep the 3 months appt to be on the safe side.
 
Thanks for the replies, folks! Its good to hear it's not just me who thought this seemed a bit OTT. Sometimes I think if I listened to the docs and never queried anything I'd be a nervous hypochondriac mess!
Its safe to say, I'm going to take the 'risk' and cancel...

McDonagh I know that retinopathy can accelerate dramatically when pregnant, and I was screened at 32 weeks with no sign of it whatsoever - not even a hint! I would have to surely make a serious effort to keep my blood sugars dangerously high to develop some in the next 12 weeks, which obviously isn't going to happen! (Last HbA1c was 5.1 so I'd have my work cut out!!)
 
Babysaurus said:
McDonagh I know that retinopathy can accelerate dramatically when pregnant, and I was screened at 32 weeks with no sign of it whatsoever - not even a hint! I would have to surely make a serious effort to keep my blood sugars dangerously high to develop some in the next 12 weeks, which obviously isn't going to happen! (Last HbA1c was 5.1 so I'd have my work cut out!!)
Click to expand...

Sorry my answer was not what you wanted to hear. But here is some more, control is not relevant to the risks of proliferating retinopathy in preganancy ( one study showed that lower bgs actually led to more soft exudates) and the increased risk persists up to six months after delivery.
 
McDonagh is perfectly correct I'm afraid !

There's a lady on another forum - known as Winni - who had terrible probs.

You might be OK. And I know it's a PITA. But what if you ain't? - you'd be kicking yourself forever. Plus I'm not so sure the next 'normal' one will be in '5 or 6 months' - what if they take it as 12 months from the one you just had?

You have to remember (I'm sure you are really but gonna say it anyway) that your baby is gonna be stuffed if you aren't 100%.
 
Although a pain in the bottom, along with all the other appointments! It is required, it's a national guideline that women who are pregnant with diabetes need to be checked each trimester.

I found this out as my GP didn't know this, but my hospital consultant insisted it was needed and in the end put me forward for some urgent appointments. I've never had any problems before having had eye screening, as I have managed it well over the 17 years so I did wonder.

However, I'm very pleased he did insist as after my first check which was clear, they have now in my 2nd check a couple of months after, found diabetic retinopathy which needs to be investigated. It was explained to me that pregnancy can exacerbate background retinopathy, that may not show up in previous scans that have been done even a few months back. Even if you have really good control it can be brought on, particularly if you have had it for some years. Had I listened to my GP, I could have had this untreated for a whole year!

Doctors wouldn't refer you if it wasn't necessary, largely as well because they have to pay extra for it!
 
eshaw said:
Although a pain in the bottom, along with all the other appointments! It is required, it's a national guideline that women who are pregnant with diabetes need to be checked each trimester.

I found this out as my GP didn't know this, but my hospital consultant insisted it was needed and in the end put me forward for some urgent appointments. I've never had any problems before having had eye screening, as I have managed it well over the 17 years so I did wonder.

However, I'm very pleased he did insist as after my first check which was clear, they have now in my 2nd check a couple of months after, found diabetic retinopathy which needs to be investigated. It was explained to me that pregnancy can exacerbate background retinopathy, that may not show up in previous scans that have been done even a few months back. Even if you have really good control it can be brought on, particularly if you have had it for some years. Had I listened to my GP, I could have had this untreated for a whole year!

Doctors wouldn't refer you if it wasn't necessary, largely as well because they have to pay extra for it!
Click to expand...

I find this very strange as I only ever had my eyes checked once during my pregnancy and then I just had my annual screening again after the birth. Doesn't surprise me that I didn't get told/screened every trimester though. I will have to remember this information for next time.
 
Perhaps there's some middle ground here - is there any way of having the retinopathy check without incurring the travel? Could your GP surgery not do the check? Or a local opticians?
 
Yes, it's a pain, but I'd not have wanted to wait 6 or 12months after giving birth to have a rescreen. It's not just the effects of blood glucose, pregnancy hormones do play a part in eyes, iirc. (certainly lots of folk I know had significant changes to prescriptions for glasses in pregnancy, and I'm pretty sure there's something in it!)

Plus, if something's found in 6 months, how do they really know whether it's pregnancy related or not? Might be useful to know if you're planning a next time.

FWIW, I was seen in pre-conception, and each trimester, then again within 3 months of C's birth. That's standard here.
 
Sorry to come so late to this thread ? I?ve been ?lurking? on this forum for ages but never posted, but this is a thread I couldn?t leave alone 

When I was pregnant last year my eyes were clear at 12 weeks but at 20 weeks my maculars were severely swollen. Over the next eight weeks I had two laser sessions but at 30 weeks was told that if I didn?t deliver I would lose all my ?detailed? vision permanently. During the pregnancy my HBA1C was between 5.7 and 4.9

I?ve been told my case was pretty rare, but still I wanted to let you know that I think your eye doc is talking sense. Pregnancy hormones can do CRAZY things, really fast.

Hope all goes well, I guess you have had baba now or are pretty close?
xx
 
Welcome Vicky - glad you've taken the plunge and posted. 🙂
 
Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
Back
Top