Every person I've heard of has had hibiclens works for them, including me. If I was to get pregnant again I would do it ahead of the test just in case. http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/chlorhexidine-hibiclens-protocol-for.html
I had it, wiped it out, retested negative, and continued using it once a day until birth. I was expected a very fast labor with broken water and knew I would never get antibiotics in time. I wanted the risk to be none or minimal. My homebirth midwife did issue me a scrip for an oral antibiotic if I chose to take it. I did choose to take it because my water broke 26h before the onset of labor, by breastpump. Baby was born two hours later.
SAHM to Chloe«- 6/2008 (10 lbs, 5 oz), Hannah- 9/2010 (9 lbs, 12 oz), Liam- 2/2013 (9 lbs, 6 oz)
Does anyone have information on large-scale studies on Hibiclens? I read conflicting information - some places site usage in the UK, but according to current info it looks like UK protocol is also IV anti-biotics, only on a different basis of risk than the US protocol. I do have concerns that there is no real research on effects during pregnancy and on infants, and depending on application is on the Class B or Class C schedule of drugs. Also, the drug information I have read indicate that it is not to be used on infants under 2 months. If I were to use it, I would not just wish to use it to pass the test, but would use it during labor in case of a Group B strep exposure.
With that said, I would like to find an effective alternative to IV antibiotics, and this seems the best method for ensuring a negative test result on GBS. Planning a hospital birth in the US, I know that while I have the option to decline any treatment, that it will be much easier to take the test, as protocol in our hospital is to assume GBS positive if no result is available.
Also, I am uncomfortable with research I have seen that indicates that 9 percent of women who tested GBS negative prior to labor were found to be positive in labor; while 16 percent of those found positive were negative at delivery. With those statistics, I would prefer to take matters of prevention in my own hands. Especially as I see studies indicating that other dangers such as E Coli and MRSA are developing as greater threats to infants as they become antibiotic-resistant due to overexposure exactly such as this (Hibiclens protects against these dangers), and that if an infant happens to become ill from GBS despite the mother's receiving antibiotics, it is generally a highly-resistant strain and much more dangerous.
@JenVose - The downside is that there really haven't been any good studies on chlorhexidine. More of the supportive dialogue comes from practitioners' and women's personal experiences using it. This notes that it's "highly promising" in killing GBS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16648420
Scroll way down this evidence-based article about the debate over chlorhexidine and what the research shows. Basically, the studies that have been done were not well-designed. http://evidencebasedbirth.com/groupbstrep
What about independent testing? I'm thinking if there is something I could get done "off-the-record" to get results just before the "official" test, then I could try all the natural remedies, know my actual status, then use the Hibiclens just to be certain I was clear for the test results the hospital would see. If my "off-the-record" test were clear, I wouldn't worry with keeping up a Hibiclens protocol, but I could take other measures if I knew that I had tested positive before.
|35 members and 18,568 guests|
|Arduinna , Ashley Park , bananabee , BirthFree , corson , Daffodil , Deborah , Dove84 , Dovenoir , ebnamon5 , emmy526 , girlspn , greenemami , harrietsmama , hillymum , IsaFrench , kathymuggle , lab , Michele123 , moominmamma , NaturallyKait , notsosuperman , oseni clinton , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , samaxtics , Skippy918 , Socks , Springshowers , sren , stephalittle , stephaniepifer , TealCandy , Tracy , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|