Group B Streptococcus Infection [Archive] - MotheringDotCommune Forums

Richie'sMama

01-07-2002, 08:36 PM

Hi.

I'm only 16 weeks, but my doctor told me I have group b strep, too and that I also have to have the antibiotics via drip. Yuk! She said I could refuse it, but that she wouldn't advise that. I did some reading and it's pretty scary if your baby gets it. However, I hate the idea of the beginning of interventions.... (My first birth was completely natural, but in the hospital. )

I did a search and found only your post. Did you find out anything else?

Thanks.

-Richie's mama

Erin Pavlina

01-07-2002, 09:38 PM

You don't have to have IV antibiotics if you don't want. After I did my research I decided I would get the antibiotics under three conditions:

1. Ruptured membranes for more than 24 hours.
2. Fever
3. Premature birth of the baby.

That's it. Otherwise I decided the risks were pretty small. Emily was fine when she was born. But it's really up to you.

Rain

01-07-2002, 11:16 PM

I did have the iv drip. I had no choice in the matter, or at least I thought I didn't. Anyway, I am glad I did, because I did run a fever while I was delivering, they also had to give ds antibiotics at birth, because of the fever. But everything turned out well.

Like Erin Pavlina said, the risks really are very small, and it is up to you, but if you decide to or have to have the iv, I just want to let you know it wasn't that bad. Actually the iv was mobile, but I wasn't. I had an epidural, because I also had the dreaded pit drop in that iv-now that is bad!!!, but up until then, when it was just the antibiotic, everything was fine.

Good Luck!!

Richie'sMama

01-08-2002, 09:41 PM

Erin -

Would you mind telling me where you did your research? Everything I've read so far scared me a lot. It implied that the risks of passing the strep onto the baby were really high and that the effects on the baby could be devastating.

Also - does anyone know how you contract group b strep and how you can get rid of it?

Thanks.

- Richie's Mama

Rain

01-08-2002, 10:04 PM

From what I read and was told by my dr., strep b is present in up to 35% of women. There is no way to get rid of it, they used to give antibiotics a few weeks before delivery, but the strep b would return. That's why they now give it by iv during delivery. I was also told that I would need the antibiotics for any future delivery, because I have had 1 postive test. You can test negative for it at certain times. Apparently the strep b lives naturally in some people, posing no health risk other than passing it on to the baby during delivery.

From what I understand, the risk of anything happening to the baby is small, but if it does it's severe. That's why I would definitly have the antibiotic again. My water had been broken quite a while before they started the iv though.

Also, the baby had to be checked by the pediatrician 4 days after birth instead of the usual 2 weeks, and I was given a list of symptoms to watch out for.

I hope that helps a little!

Len

01-09-2002, 12:34 AM

I have seen some information about GBS on the birthlove website (www.birthlove.com) when you are there do a search for GBS and you'll get several links. This is an awsome site if you don't know it yet. I was positive for GBS but the hospital misplaced my results so they didn't start the IV until I had a fever and the infection actually went into my ds blood stream so he had to remain in hospital with antibiotics for the 10 longest days of our lives.
At the end, everything was ok, though.

javamama

01-10-2002, 07:51 AM

Hi! You've gotten good information here but I wanted to add that I, too, am group b positive and had antibiotics with both my deliveries. I was a little worried about thrush and breastfeeding. We had no problems with that. The iv wasn't bad. They will give you 2 doses (?2 hours apart?) and you can have a heploc in the meantime. My nurse wasn't going to do it, but my doc came in and made her do it (heploc) so I could walk around. Very beneficieal in the first half of labor. The second half, I couldn't have cared less about that IV. The used it in the end to give me fluids because I was dehydrated and couldn't drink.

Of all the interventions, I don't feel like this will set you up for problems with a natural delivery if this is what you decide (IMHO)
Heather

SunMom

01-10-2002, 12:57 PM

Bummed out today -- I discovered that my hospital has a policy that strep B positive moms are not allowed to use the lovely new soaking labor tubs in the birthing rooms. Ok to use the tub at home, just not at hospital. Not sure if the risk is about cleaning the tub for next user (I'd think they could sterilize it) or risk to the mother/baby because of the strep.

My husband still would like to ask for one of the tub rooms, though -- for him!

jordmoder

01-10-2002, 03:51 PM

wow, sunmom- what a BUMMER! I really don't understand what the concern is with using a hospital tub - it's not as if GBS is catching, or anything. Ask if it's ok to use the tub if your water isn't broken, maybe that's the thought behind that. What it really sounds like to me is liability, liability, liabilty... why else could you do something at home that was exactly the same except for location????

You may want to really pursue the issue, because (professinally speaking) I know of no reason why GBS + women can't labor in a tub! And water in labor is sooooooooo important.

best wishes

Barbara

Katrina

01-11-2002, 02:52 PM

I had Group B strep during pregnancy, too. At first I was bummed I would need an IV, but it was really ok! I got a hep lock ( I had to ask for it), and I got 4 treatments during labor. The minimum is two, or they may need to give the baby antibiotics, then once every four(?) hours after that. It only takes about 20 minutes to get a dose, then you're free from the tubes. That in mind, you might not want to wait til the last second to get to the hospital. :rolleyes: Everything will be fine, though!!!!! I want to also stress the importance of a birth plan and involved partner at the hospital. Give it to everyone involved in your birth as early as possible, so you don't have to argue or make any speeches while you're in labor.

Katrina

01-11-2002, 02:54 PM

one more thing- if they won't let you use a tub, can you use a shower? my hospital didn't have a tub, but the shower was FANTASTIC!

Nathan1097

01-19-2002, 07:57 AM

I had group B strep this last time. I got antibiotics in labor. They kept me and the baby in a "nesting room" after I was discharged to keep watching the baby, rather than send me home and keep him in the nursery. They checked him every 4 hours for 36 hours after birth. He is fine.

However, a friend of mine didn't know she had group b strep and her water broke at home. Her baby was born at the hospital, but extremely sick because of the strep. In fact, he had to be on an ECMO machine- a heart and lung machine for babies which is pretty much a last resort!

Group b strep is nothing to mess with. I, too, couldn't get in the whirlpool tub for one reason or another- IV, water broken, post partum. oh well. I still had the birth I wanted- no drugs, pushed when I wanted, no interventions, etc.

Also, if you can't get in the tub, you probably can still get in the shower. That does a WORLD of good!

Milo

01-19-2002, 11:09 AM

I've tested positive for Group B Strep with both pregnancies at about 36 weeks. I agree, this particular nasty is nothing to mess with. I had IV antibiotics in labor both times, but my midwives just give it right into my arm with a big old needle, takes about three minutes, max. With the first baby, I was in labor about thirty plus hours, so got I think three or four doses, with baby number two I only got one, because he came in about 11 hours. Either way, I was willing to have the antibiotics, and happy that no IV drip was needed.

Birth Junkie

02-04-2002, 11:38 PM

Check out
http://thebirthsource.homestead.com/articles.html

Greaseball

02-07-2002, 12:24 AM

Mine came back positive too, which was upsetting because I was planning a homebirth. It wasn't so bad, though - I had to have IV penicillin every four hours. I was able to walk around and after a while I just kind of forgot about it. Sometimes it burned a little but they can dilute it and slow the flow down.

green willow mama

02-08-2002, 11:17 AM

I just wanted to add as a NICU nurse (neonatal icu nurse) I have seen several cases of GBS sepsis in the last 10 years, I have to say, they have all been severe. Sure lots of moms who aren't screened or who deliver precipitously don't get antibiotics and their babies may be fine in the majority of cases BUT when GBS strikes it can be devestating. I have seen parents lose a child over this as well as see parents face life with a hanicapped child due to severe sepsis and need for ECMO as someone described earlier. So as a mother who has had 4 deliveries and about to have a 5th:love in June I'm opting for antibiotics. The scary thing with GBS is the baby may look great at birth but 2-5 days later usually when parents are home the baby can become very ill. SO, just my humble opinion ;) be careful whatever route you choose and if you opt not to recieve antibiotics, please take your baby back for an early follow up. Best wishes to all mamas having to face this choice. I was never bothered by a hep lock with a few quick doses of medicine, I always was able to relax more about the birth. Take care!

sunmountain

02-08-2002, 09:11 PM

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

02-09-2002, 10:52 AM

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 :rolleyes: ) 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

04-06-2002, 05:35 AM

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

04-06-2002, 07:54 AM

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

04-06-2002, 10:41 AM

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

04-06-2002, 10:58 AM

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

04-06-2002, 11:12 AM

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

04-06-2002, 12:12 PM

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 :D for much to get to the baby!

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

Barbara

PuppyFluffer

04-06-2002, 07:42 PM

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

04-07-2002, 11:21 AM

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

04-07-2002, 07:22 PM

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

04-08-2002, 07:11 AM

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

04-08-2002, 09:07 AM

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...:D

sarahwebb

04-08-2002, 10:42 AM

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

04-09-2002, 07:35 PM

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

04-09-2002, 08:44 PM

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

04-09-2002, 09:08 PM

"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

04-10-2002, 02:53 PM

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

04-10-2002, 06:19 PM

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

04-10-2002, 08:23 PM

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.

fourlittlebirds

04-10-2002, 09:33 PM

There is a huge amount of information here:

http://gentlebirth.org/archives/gbs.html

wildmama

04-10-2002, 09:58 PM

I tested positive at around 25 weeks, which I understand is a pointless time to test, but anyway, my plan (homebirth) was to wait and see if my water broke and/or watch for fever, and then decide. My water didn't break until just before the birth, so it wasn't an issue. I didn't have any antibiotics and to date, we are both just fine. Also, my midwife had me eating a lot of onion and garlic for the antibacterial properties. Good luck to you.

sarahwebb

04-10-2002, 10:29 PM

One of the arguments against the mother receiving IV antibiotics is that the baby gets a dose which kills beneficial bacteria on the baby's skin and in the baby's system making them less resistant to some other infections after birth. A study summary stating this can be found on the gentle birth resource that sweetwater posted.

My midwife and her colleagues think I needn't worry and that antibiotics during labor may create more problems than they solve. My doctor is adamantly pro antibiotic during labor, but a friend who is an RN and has worked labor and delivery agrees with the midwives. My first cousin's ob/gyn routinely administers antibiotics to her patients who test positive to be on the safe side but says not to worry because it's rarely a risk in full term infants.

It's a tough decision, but right now, I'm planning to homebirth without antibiotics. I wish you all the best of luck in your decisions.

Love,
Sarah

ishta

04-10-2002, 11:35 PM

I've been looking into the antibiotics used during labor and have found that Penicillin G is much better then Ampicillin. Most people use ampicillin because it is cheaper and easier to get. But if you need antibiotics, I would ask your midwife or doctor if she can find some Penicillin G instead. They are both in the CDC's gbs protocall. It's target bacteria range is much narrower than Amp. and so it won't kill as much of the benificial bacteria. I'm not sure if insurance will cover this, but it's definetly something I'm going to look into if my test comes back positive.