GBS and homebirth - Page 2

[MsBlack]

As for the rate of GBS sepsis being '1 in 200', that is only according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)--I have seen that statistic too. That is, among fullterm, good sized, otherwise healthy babies born to GBS pos mom who have NOT had antibiotics, CDC says 1 in 200 babies will get infected.

BUT: one has to be aware that CDC gets it's info off of birth certificates, which are not highly reliable methods of gathering strictly TRUE and REAL data. For instance--let's say a mom is known to be GBS pos, and does not have antibiotics; maybe her baby is given 'prophylactic' antibiotics and then it goes on birth cert as antibiotics for 'suspected sepsis' or just 'sepsis', even if never proven and no signs of sepsis, JUST the antibiotics given as preventive--also remember that birth certs are not necessarily being filled out by people who have the most intimate information about a birth/baby. Also remember that more than 99% of birth certs come from hospital births (the nat'l homebirth rate in US is less than 1%)

Just to point out that that stat is inherently to be distrusted. In homebirth, the actual incidence of GBS sepsis is far less than 1 in 200 babies of GBS pos. moms w/out antibiotics. There are no good studies of homebirth and GBS in existence that I know of (and I've searched)--so I have undertaken informal surveys of all the midwives I know of (from forums, etc, as well as personal acquaintances). From well nearly 4000 homebirths accounted for in this survey of mine, only 2midwives reported cases of sepsis (3 in total), and one mw who'd done 1500 births said she'd NEVER seen it.

And yes, there are natural protocols to follow, to reduce or eliminate colonization, and so reduce/eliminate chance of transmission. GBS can be dangerous, to a very very small number of babies--but it is NOT the great bugaboo that med science tries to make it into. Or at least, not for babies who are not exposed to hospitals!

[tinkentinken]

I have nothing new to add, but I, too, had a homebirth without antibiotics despite a GBS+ test. In fact, like wwisdomskr the GBS finding was from a urine sample that we had done at about 7 months when we suspected that I might have a urinary tract infection. Luckily we were away on a trip for over a month and I didn't get the message from our midwife until after our return, which spared me several weeks of worrying. My concern was heightened when I read that colonization is usually heavier if the GBS was found in a urine sample.
Beginning several weeks before the due date, I took probiotics and various herbal and vitamine immune-boosters (vit C, echinacea, astragalus, colloidal silver...). I also used garlic intra-vaginally every few nights and near the end put tea tree oil on an organic tampon some nights. I also avoided fruit juices (in addition to all simple carbohydrates that I had already cut from my diet) since bacteria love sugar. Whether it lowered my count or not I do not know. At 37 weeks, after some a short time on this regimen, I was still GBS+. At this point I would have liked a quantitative instead of + or - type of test, since lowering the count would already be beneficial. I've heard of midwives being able to order that type of test, but it wasn't available to us.
Our midwives were equipped to administer IV antibiotics, but we agreed with them that unless we had any of the increased risk criteria: premature rupture of membranes (before 37wks), fever during labor (this is a somewhat vague area because many women have elevated temperatures during labor simply because of the hard work the body is doing), or rupture of the membranes for over 18hrs, we would not use antibiotics. Our feeling was simply that we rather take the risks of nature than the risks associated with AB's (greater incidence of e.coli, thrush....ect...).
In the end we went to 41 wks and my labor progressed quickly with internal exams kept to the absolute minimum so we were able to avoid the ab's, which I was very grateful for. (though I had to go on AB's a week later with a severe case of mastitis)
Maybe knowing that I was GBS+ was a good thing because I was able to do all the things that might have decreased the level of colonization. However, I think the worry associated with being told that you are "GBS postive!" isn't to be underestimated in the strain it adds. For this reason, I still think we may have been better off not knowing.