Group B Streptococcus Infection - Page 2

[sunmountain]

I just wanted to add that I took the three things Erin stated to my midwives, and they agreed that I didn't have to have the test, but if any of those three situations occurred, I would consent to antibiotics. Simple solution. But I would imagine it all depends on the protocol of the hospital and the laws in your state, the birthsource website was a great deal of help to me, as well, in making this decision.

[candiland]

The antibiotics you receive in labor DO NOT have to enter your body via i.v. - my homebirth midwife does 2 (I think) injections before the baby is born in the hip of the mother and this was shown to work as well as i.v. antibiotics. Also, I attended a birth at a local birthing center where they could not get a vein for the iv. to administer antibiotics. Since she began pushing shortly thereafter, she skipped the antibiotics altogether because infection of the baby is EXTREMELY rare. If I were you (famous last words : ) I would inquire about the injectable form of antibiotics... that way you would be free from an iv./heparin during your labor, which can be quite cumbersome.

[PuppyFluffer]

Group B positive - to use antibiotics or not

I tested positive very early in the pregnancy and am now 31 weeks. I will be cultured again about 34-36 weeks. If that comes back positive again.....I am trying to decide about using IV antibiotics during labor. I will be delivering at an independent birth center and the midwife is equipted to administer them. My initial feelings are to use them if I have preterm labor, develop a fever or have ruptured membranes for 18 hours or longer. If things procede normally, I'm thinking of not having them. This is my first baby and all has been well so far. I have read a good bit about GBS but am wanting some personal experiences with this if anybody else has had to make this decision and wants to share their experience.
I feel the risk is small but serious if it develops in the baby. My biggest concern is that IF I have to have hospital transport, I'll be in the hospital mega medical machine and not have a say in the procedures done to the baby if I opt NOT to have the ampicillin. I DO NOT want to be seperated from the baby or have invasive tests done to it just because I chose not to have the meds. I also don't want to bombard this tiny newborn infant with antibiotics at it's entrance to the world. What a deliema! I guess this is just the first of a lifetime of heavy decisions regarding the best interest of our baby!
Thanks for any input!

[javamama]

I tested positive group b with both pregnancies. The first pregnancy was full of interventions bc I didn't know any better. The second time, although I planned a natural birth, I did have the antibiotics. I know the efficacy is questionable and it can be viewed as as open opportunity for more interventions........for me, I was more worried about my infection in the baby's tiny body than the antibiotics.
Especially with the second, it was not bad, nothing else was put in the iv except fluid because i couldn't keep fluids down, they put in a hep loc so I had full mobility. Neither infant had thrush problems (something I worried about) or any other ill effects that I know of.
I understand your dilema....welcome to the wonderful world of parenting!
heather

[Reedsmom]

I have tested + for the strep B also. This is my first pregnancy and I am to have antibotics for acouple of hours before the baby is born, so that they will receive the antibotics. For me it isn't a question of whether or not to have them, I feel that whatever is best for the baby I'll do. I would rather be safe than really sorry!! Just my opinion!!

Chelsi

[laurajean]

PuppyFluffer,

In the past, there have been many in depth and interesting discussions on Group B strep. If you click on search and then type "Group B" into the query, you will find a lot of information.

~Laura

[laurajean]

newmommyinnov,

Just to let you know, some people, including myself, think that what is best for our babies in a birth free of unnecessary interventions. So, many women here would choose not to have antibiotics pumped into our babies - unless it did become necessary. I did not even take the Group B strep test when I was pregnant - that was my choice.

Every parent must do what he/she thinks is right for their child. What you do for your child is not necessarily what I would do, but it is right for your family. So, I am not knocking it. I just want you to know you do have a choice.

~Laura

[jordmoder]

I completely understand your concern that if you do test postive at 36 weeks and your midwife is able to let you decline antibiotics in labor (some standards are that if you decide to test, you are bound to follow the result)that if you do transport all kinds of stuff will be done to the baby.

This is unfortunately true. GBS CAN be a serious concern for some babies - the problem is of course, no one knows which ones. This is a real tough decision (again, welcome to being a parent!)and I would NEVER say make a decision out of fear, but oh, my I've seen some really terrible interventions done to newborns because their GBS "status" was positive or even UNKNOWN.

What does your midwife say?

My own personal decision here is to have the antibiotics if I test positive. I'll find out next visit, I'm 38 weeks. But I know my situation is that usually there isn't time for much to get to the baby!

Good luck! and best wishes for a lovely, peaceful, natural birth.

Barbara

[PuppyFluffer]

jordmoder,

thanks for the feedback. My midwife has placed the decision with me and has given me some literature to read about the risks and chances of infection. She basically said to locate a pediatrician or family practice doctor and discuss it with them as it is a decision that affects the baby untimately and that is the domain of the baby's doctor. I did interview a ped. who recommends the antibiotics but will observe the baby for problems before beginning any interventions. If problems appear then we'd be on the medical roller coaster and I don't think that I could deny their usual route of diagnosis/treatment. I certainly don't want to harm my baby in any way.

I might have opted not to have the GBS test done but I had some very early spotting and the gyn that I saw at that time asked about any other discharge and I said I did not think I had anything unusual. She did a culture "just because' and it came back positive for Group B strep. That is how I have the knowledge that I carry this bacteria. I might test negative again. My midwife has suggested we test and hope for a negative result. She'll do what ever I want as far as antibiotics. I have that flexibility at the birth center. I don't have that at the hospital should I need to go there.

[sully]

i tested negative in my firdt pregnancy and positive in my second. I decided to have the antibiotics, after talking at length with my midwife who said she has seen more than one baby die from contracting group b strep at birth. But when it came time, i wound up with a 2 hour labor at home and a mad dash to the hospital to birth my baby, she was born an hour after i arrived at the hospital and it was too late to bother with the antibioyics, so I didn't have them. we had to have bloodwork done on her, which i was so upset about but it didn't phaze her, she didn't even cry! her tests came out fine and she was closely observed for the next day or so, no problems.

[Ravenmoon]

Because my first labor was only 4 hours long and we were pretty sure #2 would go along the same lines i opted not to get the antibiotics.My midwife brought them just in case but they need at least 8 hours to administer them and if you don't get the full dose there is no point in getting them.My water broke 12 seconds before i gave birth and the labor was a total of 6 hours.I had my ds checked out when he was 3 days old just in case. My midwife had said to look for difficulty in breathing and cold like symptoms.He was fine and didn't have the blood test.This time i am still positive and will have the antibiotics available if necessary(water being broken for too long or long labor)but have opted no otherwise and will probably have the baby checked on day three.

[Katrina]

This is a tough decision. I had Group B strep, and I did do the antibiotics. I was concerned, but I was more concerned about interventions that might take place if I didn't do them. I assume you will be breastfeeding, and if you are, your colostrum will contain lots of antibodies that will protect your babe after birth, probably making up for the antibiotics. I was also worried that I would end up with lots of interventions during birth, but it wasn't the case. I stated clearly in my birth plan that I wanted a heparin lock, and I got it. I had no other interventions in my birth, and even the rotten nurse I had didn't bug me to use the IV to get fluids or anything.

[Mcaws]

I have only had one hospital birth but it may as well have been a birthing center. It was fantastic. I tested pos for gbs and they told me they were puting in an iv. I was not given a choice or literature, explanations, or anything. I did not know until now (due July 4) that I actually had choices regarding this issue! I spoke to one midwife who said she will not administer iv and in TX it's law that if tested, and pos, then iv MUST be used. Then I spoke to another midwife at a hospital locally and (military) who said the hosp does not even test unless they have reasons like those mentioned above!

Since I tested pos last time, the first midwife said the likelyhood is that I'll just be put on antibiotics anyway simply because I tested pos the first time.

I think I would like a test again first...

[sarahwebb]

I tested positive for GBS, and, after looking into it, decided that I would probably birth in the hospital with antibiotics if the baby was preterm but continue with my homebirth plans if the baby was term, and I had no other risk facotrs--fever, waters broken for a long time, etc. I started having contractions Saturday morning that turned out to be prelabor (just shy of 38 weeks), and I really had to think about what I would do. I'm receiveing parallel care, and wishing that I had found a new doctor when I finally pinned mine down on his definition of natural childbirth. He had given lip service to supporting my natural birth choices all the way through my pregnancy, but when I finally asked him at 34 weeks what his definition of natural childbirth was, I almost fainted! (IV, ARM at 4 cm, internal fetal monitor and uterine catheter, 70-80 primagravida episiotomy rate...)

Until I got the GBS screen back, I had decided I could cope with him because I'd only need him in a dire emergency. I hadn't considered that I might need to have a relatively normal labor in the hospitla with him in attendance because of a small complication...

I have an appointment with him tomorrow and am trying to figure out how I will approach my birth plan. Also, I can't decide whether or not to allow him to do an internal and ask him to do a second culture for GBS. I sure wish my Nurse Practitioner had been right about staying negative once you get a negative culture, but I've read too much information to the contrary.

I'm beginning to think, from what I've read, that perhaps many of the women who do the antibiotics, test negative then test positive again may be swapping it back and forth with their husbands. It's not classified as a sexually transmitted disease, but multiple sexual partners is listed as a risk factor, and currently it's not customary to test and treat partners. What if women who are treated and then test positive again are getting it transmitted back to them by their partners??

Anybody have their partner tested and treated?

Thanks,
Sarah

[ishta]

wow, I'm so glad to see this post today. I just wanted to let you know that I'm right in there with you. My midwife just left my house after discussing the gbs test. Thoughout the pregnancy I have had no tests done other than some blood work. I am really trying to follow my intuition about all of this and I feel inside that my body and baby are healthy and strong. The tests have all seemed pointless, until this gbs thing. I am having a real dilema because my midwife told me how common this thing is and she said that of all the tests she would do, this one would be it. I am pretty anti-antibiotics, so I have no idea what I would do if I did do the test and it came back positive! I'm thinking that I will probably get the test and only get antibiotics if I develop a risk factor. The midwife said that if I don't take the test and my membranes have ruptured for over 18 hours, I would pretty much have to go to the hospital since they wouldn't know. And at the hospital I would most likely have to have them. Whereas if I do take the test and it's negative, then it is not as big of a deal. But what if it's positive? I don't want antibiotics, but I know I'm going to worry like crazy if I have gbs and don't have them! This has definatly been the most dificult decision thus far. Does anyone know the side effects of the antibiotics? My midwife said they use Ampicillin and I'm wondering what this could do to the baby.

[AutumnMoonfire]

Hi all.

*Here Autumn starts in again with what is done where she works*

Plenty of GBS positive moms miss antibiotics or only get one dose. The babies seem to do fine.

The policy however says that if there has not been a GBS culture mother is presumed positive.

In a normal healthy newborn all this means is that we will be checking temp, heart rate and resperation rate every four hours after the first 12 hours are up (normally we check every 8 hours after the first 12 hours of life) It also means that they will hop on irregularities faster...

Now if you chose antibiotics but do not want the saline lock to remain after you are done, take a shower and "let it fall out by accident" and then don't let them do a restart...but I never said this

[jordmoder]

"Now if you chose antibiotics but do not want the saline lock to remain after you
are done, take a shower and "let it fall out by accident" and then don't let them
do a restart...but I never said this"

Hee hee, Autumn!

[Reedsmom]

Forgive me if this sounds dumb!!! :)

I am just wondering, with having strep B myself, what is wrong with having antibodics for myself and the baby? Maybe I am not following you all, or I am not looking at this correctly. Is there something wrong with having the antibodics? Could this be harmful to me or my child? Or are you all just not interested in any intervention whatever it might be? Please let me know, I am not trying to be rude! I just want what is best for my child and me!!!

Thanks
Chelsi

[PuppyFluffer]

Newmommyinnov,

I too am wondering about the risks of the antibiiotics and whether it is worth it to take them routinely given the small chance of the baby being infected with GBS. The only real negative I have heard about the antibiotics (ampicillin) is that in some children, the early exposure can possible set them up for some antibiotic resistant bugs later on. I asked the pediatrician that I "interviewed" about this and he said that that was not a concern to be worried about and that it is very rare. That's the only feedback I have come across.
Intuitively, it does not seem right to bombard the newborn with antibiotics. This is just a feeling I have. If it will protect the baby from other invasive procedures (bloodtesting, spinal taps etc) then I have a hard time turning it down, but it just does not settle right with me. This uneasiness I feel is what caused me to post the question "what have others done in this situation?" I have another appointment with my midwife tomorrow and we will talk about this again.....I' still do not know what to do.

[AutumnMoonfire]

Ampicillen isn't a last resort antibiotic, I would rather get it than say, Zithromax. Resistant strains come from taking antibiotics you do not need, like for a cold, or from not finishing a course of antibiotics. I am in no way saying you should do or not do anything.

I do understand your concerns, I do not think that the ampicillen causes problems in the baby other than perhaps thrush, but if the baby displays symptoms that upset anyone they will be quicker to do a blood culture test, start an IV and give gentamycin. which can damage hearing. I haven't heard of spinal taps being done on newborns *shudder* but then we do not have a NICU where I work.

for me, I think I would do the ampacillen rather than let some trigger happy pedi or resident get going after 1 episode of rapid respers or cold baby...but that's just me...

In the bad old days strep B killed babies, some of the more experienced and older nurses remember those days, that's why everybody gets so wigged out about it.

I'm kinda middle of the road, more than once I have turned down the latest in antibiotic therepy saying, "hey lets try some erythromycin first ok?"

Don't be scared to do the antibiotic or to say no to it. It is your body and your baby.