Group B Streptococcus Infection - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 48 Old 04-07-2002, 11:22 PM
 
Ravenmoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Ravenmoon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 of 48 Old 04-08-2002, 11:11 AM
 
Katrina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 296
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Katrina is offline  
#33 of 48 Old 04-08-2002, 01:07 PM
 
Mcaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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...
Mcaws is offline  
#34 of 48 Old 04-08-2002, 02:42 PM
 
sarahwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
sarahwebb is offline  
#35 of 48 Old 04-09-2002, 11:35 PM
 
ishta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
ishta is offline  
#36 of 48 Old 04-10-2002, 12:44 AM
 
AutumnMoonfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Adirondacks
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
AutumnMoonfire is offline  
#37 of 48 Old 04-10-2002, 01:08 AM
 
jordmoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: the wild west
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"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!
jordmoder is offline  
#38 of 48 Old 04-10-2002, 06:53 PM
Banned
 
Reedsmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Central PA
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
Reedsmom is offline  
#39 of 48 Old 04-10-2002, 10:19 PM
 
PuppyFluffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 9,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

"To err is human, to forgive, canine." - Unknown
PuppyFluffer is offline  
#40 of 48 Old 04-11-2002, 12:23 AM
 
AutumnMoonfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Adirondacks
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
AutumnMoonfire is offline  
#41 of 48 Old 04-11-2002, 01:33 AM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is a huge amount of information here:

http://gentlebirth.org/archives/gbs.html
cottonwood is offline  
#42 of 48 Old 04-11-2002, 01:58 AM
 
wildmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Midwest
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
wildmama is offline  
#43 of 48 Old 04-11-2002, 02:29 AM
 
sarahwebb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
sarahwebb is offline  
#44 of 48 Old 04-11-2002, 03:35 AM
 
ishta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
ishta is offline  
#45 of 48 Old 05-08-2002, 10:29 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
bumping up for a friend
kama'aina mama is offline  
#46 of 48 Old 06-26-2002, 04:07 PM
 
AutumnMoonfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Adirondacks
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
yet another friendly bump
AutumnMoonfire is offline  
#47 of 48 Old 06-26-2002, 04:16 PM
 
AutumnMoonfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Adirondacks
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am just bumping this for a friend...
AutumnMoonfire is offline  
#48 of 48 Old 06-26-2002, 04:48 PM
 
AmyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,000
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The Center for Disease Control recommends treating Strep B with IV antibiotics for babies before 37 weeks, for rupture of membarnes more than 18 hours before birth and for fever during labor.

Otherwise statistical risk of adverse reaction to antibiotics outweighs benefits.

--AmyB
AmyB is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off