Group B Strep (?) test and treatment in pregnancy?

[emeraldjoy]

I just got back from my 35 week appointment where I was tested for Group B.

I tested postive with my first and negative with #2 and #3.

This current doc. says if any of his patients have ever tested postive he treats them anyway; even if they test negative later on.

Any ideas on this?

Experiences?

Wondeful insight?

I just feel that I do not want to do anything, especially medication wise, unneccesary.

Thanks.

Emerald

[1bassoon]

I've been Group B strep positive with the last 4 babies -

 

Baby #2, was a long delivery (well, at that time, 8 hrs was long for me) and I had meds delivered through an IV.

 

With baby #3, she came in literally a half-hour labor! Yikes! The pedi said he wasn't particularly worried - he didn't think she'd been in the birth canal long enough to pick it up. He just watched her for symptoms of infection - there were none.

 

Last 2 babies, I did have the drip during labor - 4 hrs. and then a 25 hour whopper. Sorry I can't be of more help!

[LG Gone Wild]

I tested positive for 1 and 2, then negative for 3. My obgyn said that it can happen. Sometimes it just goes away. She left the ball in my court on whether to treat or not. I ended up not treating. The medicine, though IV, has a gross taste.

 

#3 turned out okay.

 

Your doctor is being cautious and possibly thinking about not getting sued in case something did develop.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

I tested positive and was told that I'd need antibiotics during delivery. However, ds was born in 30 minutes - no time for anything. He's fine.

[NancyNellen]

I was positive w/ #4 and therefore automatically treated w/ #5. I do think it depends on the doc. If you push the issue, he may relent.

 

On a different note...make sure you know you're not allergic to the antibiotic before labor. Because I can tell you from experience that labor is no time to find out you're allergic to penicillin. :001_smile:

[Veritaserum]

I just feel that I do not want to do anything, especially medication wise, unneccesary.

Thanks.

Emerald

 

:iagree: I choose not to be treated unless I spike a fever or display some other indication of infection. That is what used to be standard of care because it was effective without exposing mothers and babies to the risks of unnecessary medications. Today's culture of cya medicine means they treat everyone. Something to be aware if is that gbs runs in cycles. Negative at 35 weeks could mean positive at 40 and vice versa. That's why I prefer to treat only if risk factors are present (ie. water broken and fever). I feel that's the safest course to take.

[lighthouseacademy]

I have heard that the new recommendations are that once positive doesn't mean you are always positive but many doctors still go by the old recommendations. That said, here is food for thought and a bit controversial...

There is some research which is showing that the real problem cases for Group B are when mom is colonized high enough for infection but not high enough to trigger an immune response. In those cases the test will be negative but mom can actually be positive. It is these cases that the infection is actually not in the birth canal but in the amniotic fluid. As I discussed this with my midwife, she related a birth she attended. Mom was around her due date (no premature baby), was negative at testing, waters didn't break until just before delivery, no fever, short labor (4 hours). Shortly after the baby was born, it began to show signs of an infection so my midwife took the baby in to the hospital ER. When the dr came back he he told the mw that the baby had an infection of about 12 hours of exposure to GBS. The midwife told the Dr. that was impossible- the baby was only about 6 hours old and the water had only broken shortly before that. The Dr. relayed that there was some evidence to suggest that the real problem is not in the birth canal but in the amniotic fluid if mom didn't have a high enough immune response.

 

So, after all that, we opted not to test or treat. The truth is, you can be positive today and negative tomorrow.

 

Also, the evidence I have seen shows that there doesn't seem to be any better outcome to giving antibiotics to everyone but there does seem to be a down-side in thrush and antibiotic reactions, etc.

[Jenn in Mo]

I tested positive with all 4 pregnancies. Even if I treat it with antibiotics, it is hospital policy that I be treated with IV antibiotics while in labor. I never refused them, but I've wondered since if I would have done it differently. The two pregnancies that were longer IV/delivery time are my two allergy kids. Eczema and food sensitivities. Most likely a coincidence. They are also my two blonde headed kids and longer IV time didn't cause that :tongue_smilie: But I have wondered.

[Annie Laurie]

I have never been tested for this. First son, it just wasn't common then and was never suggested. My other kids my midwife never even suggested it. I had one at a hospital and the other two at home and they were all fine.

[emeraldjoy]

Thanks for all the food for thought.

emerald

[susie in tx]

I don't test for GBS. I do know that some people use Hibiclens once they test positive. Is it possible that you can request no treatment?

 

Here is some information from the midwifery archives about GBS.

 

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

[beansprouts]

Treating Group B Strep: Are Antibiotics Necessary?