# No gestational sac at 6 weeks- biochemical?



## BetsyPage (Mar 5, 2004)

Well, I thought I was six weeks pregnant... last AF was 3/22, I have 26 day cycles, so AF was due about 4/17 for me. I tested then, had definite positive test. The baby HAD to have been conceived between March 31st-April 3rd according to fertility symptoms and when we were active (March 31st.) So, according to my calculations I should have been about 6 weeks (or 4 weeks since conception).

So, after having some pinkish discharge two days in a row, I wake up this morning and found blood... like a period. Went to the ER, and find out that my HCG levels are low (75) and they could not find a gestational sac. Bleeding has picked up to heavy period level, cramping a bit.

I go to see a midwife for a follow-up tomorrow... from what I can find, it sounds like I had a biochemical pregnancy. But why did it "hang on" so long? If there was not even a gestational sac, it seems like it would have stopped developing a couple of weeks ago?


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

I'm so sorry for your loss.

There are lots of possibilities. Many miscarriages are caused by abnormal fetal development, which means that you may not see the features expected from the gestational age of the pregnancy on ultrasound. The gestational sac might have developed, and then broken down again. It's also possible that the baby stopped developing, but "hung on" nonetheless - this happened to me a few years ago (I miscarried at 11 weeks, of a pregnancy that apparently stopped developing at 8 weeks or less). The process that sheds the uterine lining is hormonally triggered, and a pregnancy can continue to have hormonal effects long after the fetus ceases to develop.


----------

