Group B Strep Support Thread

ive found it and printed out the info for my MW to see, she said she didnt know anyone who had taken a private test...reliability etc, ive just found the info on the reliabilty as appossed to the NHS tests, im going to go in armed with my findings lol:haha:
 
Just to lot any of you followers know that I'm doing some more research now I have direct access to the literature and am updating the first post accordingly. :thumbup:
 
Hi all. I had my baby on Sunday, at home, no antibiotics for either of us, and she is perfect. :cloud9:

I hope what is here stays helpful, if anyone has new questions I'm more than happy to do more research if it will help.
 
Hi ladies i hope you dont mind me posting here as im not a home or natural birther but i do have GBS and this is the only support thread ive found on it. Basically my question is ive read several times that GBS can cause pre term labour and to expect to have baby early, how true is this and is it something i should be concerned about? thanks
 
Hi scots_mum. You're more than welcome to post here. I haven't come across much evidence substantiating this theory though I have heard it before. There is some indication that an infection (I don't think necessarily just gbs) might in some cases be linked with waters going prematurely (this doesn't necessarily mean before 37 weeks). I read some research a few weeks ago about some of the factors the baby releases that can trigger labour and one was something that can also be produced in response to infection this triggering labour earlier than it otherwise would be.

In that case though it is in response to infection which gbs usually isn't. Gbs is just part of the natural flora and does not cause symptoms maternally. So carrying it is not the same as having an active infection. If it is found in pee this is taken as an indicator of a more virulent strain (and so raises the risk of neonatal infection) and is an infection as there should be no bacteria in pee. That's then a uti.

I'm not sure if this is making much sense! :dohh: This is as much as I know/understand but if I can find time to get on the computer I can browse the science and see if there is any more conclusive research recently published. DH finishes pat leave today so I'm going to be a bit manic for a while! Bump the thread if you feel ages has passed and I've not posted here again!
 
I don't know if you've seen this article before....

https://www.suite101.com/content/natural-remedies-for-gbs-infection-in-pregnancy-a188137
 
Oooooh, just spotted this :)

I'd love a home birth, had planned one for when I was pregnant with DD back in '09, went into labour, on call midwife came out and didn't believe me when I said my water were coming in a slow leak, so she swabbed me and said that baby's head was swollen and had to go into hosp.

Discharged myself the next evening with baby and got a phone call the next day saying my swab showed that I had group B strep.

Am subscribing to this thread to read properly when I have more time, but you've already given me encouragement to actually think about a home birth again :) :hugs:
 
I find I'm not too keen on that article mm. It's seems to be both gbs is the most terrifying thing in the world but you can fix it by eating well, neither of which are ideas I quite subscribe to... I shall mull it over. At some point this week I'll try and find time to look into the prom business.
 
Hi scots_mum. You're more than welcome to post here. I haven't come across much evidence substantiating this theory though I have heard it before. There is some indication that an infection (I don't think necessarily just gbs) might in some cases be linked with waters going prematurely (this doesn't necessarily mean before 37 weeks). I read some research a few weeks ago about some of the factors the baby releases that can trigger labour and one was something that can also be produced in response to infection this triggering labour earlier than it otherwise would be.

In that case though it is in response to infection which gbs usually isn't. Gbs is just part of the natural flora and does not cause symptoms maternally. So carrying it is not the same as having an active infection. If it is found in pee this is taken as an indicator of a more virulent strain (and so raises the risk of neonatal infection) and is an infection as there should be no bacteria in pee. That's then a uti.

I'm not sure if this is making much sense! :dohh: This is as much as I know/understand but if I can find time to get on the computer I can browse the science and see if there is any more conclusive research recently published. DH finishes pat leave today so I'm going to be a bit manic for a while! Bump the thread if you feel ages has passed and I've not posted here again!

thank you, its all very confusing and there seems to be conflicting advice all over the net. According to my midwife the gbs was picked up in my urine sample so must of been the one that was sent away at my booking in at 9 weeks. All ive been told is for now nothing needs to be done but when in labour i will need IV antibiotics throughout, and thats it really. Of course i then started googling and panicked myself, my midwife dosnt seem to think its an issue at all though.
 
Hi scots_mum. You're more than welcome to post here. I haven't come across much evidence substantiating this theory though I have heard it before. There is some indication that an infection (I don't think necessarily just gbs) might in some cases be linked with waters going prematurely (this doesn't necessarily mean before 37 weeks). I read some research a few weeks ago about some of the factors the baby releases that can trigger labour and one was something that can also be produced in response to infection this triggering labour earlier than it otherwise would be.

In that case though it is in response to infection which gbs usually isn't. Gbs is just part of the natural flora and does not cause symptoms maternally. So carrying it is not the same as having an active infection. If it is found in pee this is taken as an indicator of a more virulent strain (and so raises the risk of neonatal infection) and is an infection as there should be no bacteria in pee. That's then a uti.

I'm not sure if this is making much sense! :dohh: This is as much as I know/understand but if I can find time to get on the computer I can browse the science and see if there is any more conclusive research recently published. DH finishes pat leave today so I'm going to be a bit manic for a while! Bump the thread if you feel ages has passed and I've not posted here again!

thank you, its all very confusing and there seems to be conflicting advice all over the net. According to my midwife the gbs was picked up in my urine sample so must of been the one that was sent away at my booking in at 9 weeks. All ive been told is for now nothing needs to be done but when in labour i will need IV antibiotics throughout, and thats it really. Of course i then started googling and panicked myself, my midwife dosnt seem to think its an issue at all though.

As I understand it, colonizations of GBS come and go- so a test now for you at 19 weeks doesn't mean much. If I were in your situation, I'd ask to be tested again at 36 weeks (is that when they usually do it here in the US? or is it 37 weeks?) and THEN if it comes back positive, your doctor may require IV antibiotics in labor.
 
In the UK the pee sample taken at booking in is sent off and gbs is tested. You should have antibiotics now is it came up positive as this is a uti and needs treating. Having it in your pee is a specific risk factor (one of the homebirth org or gbss links in the first post will give you ratios of increase in risk for each factor, I forget what the increase is for in your pee).

If you are not bothered about a homebirth then antibiotics are probably advisable because of this extra level of risk. With a baby born before 37 weeks (which of course no-one expects but does happen) I would certainly advise accepting the antibiotics - for me prematurity is the primary concern. If your baby is term there is more leeway around acceptable risk. I agree with the advice to get a swab at 36 weeks and asking for your pee to be checked again. If either is positive you will need to consider whether the increase in risk from having had a positive pee test earlier in pregnancy is more or less than the risk you see with having the antibiotics (for which evidence is a bit shaky). If they are negative you don't need the abs.

When it comes down to it it's all a balance of numbers against one another and different individual mums will come to different conclusions depending on what's important to them and whether they have any of the other risk factors.

Sorry if this is waffley, I'm not good at being concise and possibly coherent when replying on my phone!
 
Hi everyone. I have a dilemma, and I'm hoping you can help. I'm planning a birth-center birth, and have tested GBS+ via swab test. I have done the research and do not have any additional risk factors (though I don't know yet about my water breaking, LOL). I have been using probiotics, fermented foods, garlic, etc to help reduce the GBS and improve the "good flora" in my system. I have decided that I do NOT want the antibiotics for a variety of reasons.
However, because midwife-led birth centers are considered "fringe" medicine here in the US, they have to go by the book. So, I cannot remain a patient if I refuse the antibiotics. If I do refuse, and they still allow me to birth there, they could lose their insurance/license.
This is their protocol: If my water breaks before labor starts, they want me to come in every 4 hours to get hooked up to an IV for ampicillin. They will continue the IV every 4 hours til baby is born. If water doesn't break first, they want me to come in when contractions are 4 minutes apart for an hour and I will start the IV then. I will only have a saline hep-lock in that they will connect every 4 hours, not a continuous IV.
So, these are my options as I see it:
1. Follow their instructions and get the antibiotics
2. Ignore their instructions and show up to the birth center when I'm in transition, or "too late" for the IV. (They might still end up giving me an antibiotic shot, though).
3. Opt to have a hospital birth, where I can sign a waiver and refuse the antibiotics
4. Have an unattended homebirth (which we are NOT prepared for)

Any thoughts/advice/opinions? This is my first baby and I'm almost 39 weeks, so he could come anytime and I'm getting nervous. Thanks in advance!
 
Hi everyone. I have a dilemma, and I'm hoping you can help. I'm planning a birth-center birth, and have tested GBS+ via swab test. I have done the research and do not have any additional risk factors (though I don't know yet about my water breaking, LOL). I have been using probiotics, fermented foods, garlic, etc to help reduce the GBS and improve the "good flora" in my system. I have decided that I do NOT want the antibiotics for a variety of reasons.
However, because midwife-led birth centers are considered "fringe" medicine here in the US, they have to go by the book. So, I cannot remain a patient if I refuse the antibiotics. If I do refuse, and they still allow me to birth there, they could lose their insurance/license.
This is their protocol: If my water breaks before labor starts, they want me to come in every 4 hours to get hooked up to an IV for ampicillin. They will continue the IV every 4 hours til baby is born. If water doesn't break first, they want me to come in when contractions are 4 minutes apart for an hour and I will start the IV then. I will only have a saline hep-lock in that they will connect every 4 hours, not a continuous IV.
So, these are my options as I see it:
1. Follow their instructions and get the antibiotics
2. Ignore their instructions and show up to the birth center when I'm in transition, or "too late" for the IV. (They might still end up giving me an antibiotic shot, though).
3. Opt to have a hospital birth, where I can sign a waiver and refuse the antibiotics
4. Have an unattended homebirth (which we are NOT prepared for)

Any thoughts/advice/opinions? This is my first baby and I'm almost 39 weeks, so he could come anytime and I'm getting nervous. Thanks in advance!

There is a fifth option- you could try and find a midwife to do an attended homebirth. I'm not sure how it works in TN, but my local group of midwives will do an antibiotic vaginal douche several times throughout labor instead of intravenous antibiotics. (Although I have no idea how effective it is or the details of this.)

I think it comes down to what's more important to you: birthing at the birth center, or not getting the antibiotics. And that's a crappy decision to have to make.
 
Hi 5ara. Gosh I wish I had an answer! Being in the UK we don't have anything like that and I'm not at all familiar with the way things work over there. So no advice but instead a caution - if you do show up too late to have the iv they will no doubt want to give the baby antibiotics upon birth as a precaution. I personally was very opposed to that abd it will be something for you to consider. I don't know if that's something you can get out of.

I hope someone in the US might be able to offer some advice.

Glad the thread's been bumped, will try and find time to research the prom and gbs connection tonight.
 
OK on PROM and pPROM, I have found it hard to find stuff. Most things seem to be about antibiotics under those circumstances rather than what the causes might be. Specifically on GBS I have found tow studies one finding a statistically significant link between GBS and oPROM and one not!

"We found no statistically significant relationship between a specific bacterial strain and PROM and pPROM" Author(s): Veleminsky M (Veleminsky, Milos)1,2, Tosner J (Tosner, Jindrich)3
Source: NEUROENDOCRINOLOGY LETTERS Volume: 29 Issue: 2 Pages: 205-221 Published: APR 2008

"GBS infection among pregnant women was significantly correlated with the gestational age, PROM and preterm labor." Author(s): Dechen, Tsering Chomu; Sumit, Kar; Ranabir, Pal
Source: J Glob Infect Dis Volume: 2 Issue: 3 Pages: 236-41 Published: 2010 Sep

I did find a large scale study significantly linking infection in general with pPROM and PROM:
Author(s): Bevilacqua, G; Braibanti, S; Solari, E; Anfuso, S; Fragni, G; Soncini, E
Source: Pediatr Med Chir Volume: 27 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 31-8 Published: 2005 May-Aug
Abstract: The neonate, in particular if preterm, has a specific immunological system that makes him/her more susceptible to infections which are still a major cause of mortality and morbidity. The early onset infective patterns are often vertically transmitted from the mother to the fetus in the perinatal period. Some mother conditions like genitourinary infections, pre-delivery fever, PROM, pPROM, preterm delivery, abortions, fetal demise are important neonatal risk factors. The role of these factors as causes of early onset neonatal infections was evaluated by an Italian multicentric epidemiologic investigation supported by the MIUR. Mothers admitted to obstetrician hospitals for parturition were studied in a case control retrospective analysis. Mothers presenting with the selected risk factors were the cohort of cases while the admissions without risk factors next to each case represented the controls. The following risk factors were considered for analysis: 2nd trimester abortion, PROM, pPROM, preterm delivery and fetal demise. Eight hospitals entered the multicentric research and 29610 patients have been analyzed: 2466 PROM, 478 pPROM, 946 preterm delivery, 244 abortions, 133 fetal demise. Every woman received a microbiological screening by cervico-vaginal and rectal swab and/or urine culture. As much as 3892 cases from the University Hospitals of Parma and Torino concern, the cervicovaginal swab was positive in 76.5% pPROM, in 50.6% PROM and 50.5% preterm deliveries. The positivity of the swabs showed statistical relevance in cases compared to controls. In cases presenting with abortion the frequency of positive cultures (44.1%) was higher than the controls, but it did not reach statistical relevance. Conversely, positivity of cultures was lower in cases with fetal demise than control group but without statistical difference. In the cohort of 675 women selected from our Institute (University of Parma) the overall rate of positivity of cervico-vaginal swabs was about 44% and only one germ was isolated in 94.6% cases: 49,8% Gram positive and negative, 14.1% Streptococcus hemolyticus B group, 34.7% Candida. The rate of cultural tests performed before delivery was statistically higher in cases than controls (74.3% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001). Furthermore 14.3% newborns from mothers in the case group and 2.3% newborns from mothers in the control group were admitted to the neonatal care unit. Among them 8.4% and 1.2% respectively needed antibiotics while 0.4% and 0.2% respectively presented with early onset infection. Ear swabs were performed in 48,8% of infants born to mothers from the case group and in 26.9% of infants born to mothers from the control group, in 6.5% and in 2.9% respectively were the skin swabs performed as well. No statistical difference was met. The choice to perform cultural examinations was statistically higher in cases than controls, but the positivity rate was similar in both groups, perhaps because of a more specific choice in the control group. CONCLUSION: our data confirm the relationship between infections and preterm delivery, PROM, pPROM and support the hypothesis that infections might be the cause of these conditions and not simply an association. A prompt maternal microbiological control during pregnancy and delivery, especially in women presenting with known risk factors, gives the possibility to do early diagnostic-therapeutic interventions and to minimize the frequency and severity of early sepsis in newborns.
 
Lalabelle - Thanks for the reply! From what I've read, the antibiotic douche is effective, but my group doesn't do this (I asked). I don't feel like I could do a homebirth with a new midwife at this late stage of pregnancy. It just hasn't been something I've even mentally prepared for. Also, DH would NEVER go for it.

PeanutBean - Thanks for your reply as well! I am very opposed to giving antibiotics to LO directly, so I will have to ask if that is required. I might be able to refuse it though, since he'd already be born. From what I've read, PROM is only a risk factor after it's been 12-18 hrs. I will not be telling them if my water breaks until then (or at all).

It is definitely a hard choice, but I'm leaning towards going to the birth center late. Even if they do start the antibiotics, hopefully it will not be long enough to make a difference.
 
5ara - I haven't done my homework on specific research, but I'm a Labor nurse in the US and we do not give antibiotics to babies that are born too fast to get them in labor. The baby is simply monitored for any signs of infection. There is no need for extended hospital stay, or extended time in the nursery/away from mom.
 
Hi all

just thought id update you.
i had my baby, had the the antibiotics durring the labour. what they didnt tell me is that my hospital stay would be extended by 3 days. every day i was promised to be able to go home and every evening my hopes were dashed, i wasnt best pleased, upset really. I felt very missinformed. I thought the antibiotics would be enough, my baby showed now signs of further infection after being born either.
Just to let you all know what might happen with your GBS
 
Update:
I talked to a couple of the MWs at my birth center and explained all my worries. They said that if I showed up in labor they weren't going to strap my arm down for the IV, and they wouldn't send me to hospital. Basically, if I'm in labor and I refuse to allow the antibiotics, they won't do anything. I'll have to sign a release after the fact, and the baby will have a blood test to see if he is infected. I will also have to stay at least 12 hrs instead of 6 hrs after the birth, so the baby can be observed. They will not give antibiotics to LO unless he shows symptoms of illness. I'm fine with that.

This has relieved my anxiety a LOT, and now I can go in as planned without worry. Thanks for all of your input!
 
That sounds quite reasonable 5ara, as things go! If you're happy with that then :thumbup: Here the protocol is usually 24hrs for obs though in madcat's case above it was 48hrs. :wacko: Of course you can continue to monitor your baby yourself. Most early onset (ie. Probably maternal) gbs cases do come on in the first 12 hours.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
1,650,407
Messages
27,149,566
Members
255,821
Latest member
Bumper23
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "c48fb0faa520c8dfff8c4deab485d3d2"