gbs positive and allergic to abs

[Eenee]

copied this from Lisa Barrett's website- she's a independant midwife (hope she doesn't mind) I didn't copy and paste it all cos it was long but you can google the rest if you like

This week I have been in contact with the hospital system and had extensive discussions about GBS. Group B Strep is a bacteria that can live in your vagina. It is transient - it comes and goes- 15 to 30% of us have it at one time. This is only a potential problem if you happen to be pregnant.

Strep B also known as GBS

There is a lot of scare mongering about GBS and it's implications, so what is the real deal?

Well first of all should you get the test? In the UK where screening isn't part of the antenatal testing circus this is what they have to say:
Estimated effects of bacteriological screening. Approximately 25% of mothers in the UK are likely to be GBS carriers. This estimate is based on a single study performed in the 1980s and it is possible that this study does not reflect the current picture. With the addition of women who present with other clinical risk factors for GBS disease, such as preterm labour, around 30% of all pregnant women would receive intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis if a bacteriological screening programme were to be introduced in the UK (this is approximately 204,000 women per annum).

n Australia GBS testing is routine at about 36 weeks. If this is positive, you are assumed to be positive at the time of birth. The standard hospital treatment for this is antibiotics when in labour. Just because you have gbs in your vagina doesn't mean you have an infection it means you have the risk of an infection. Just because you had gbs at 36 weeks doesn't mean you have it at term as it grows in cycles.

Antibotics are promoted as a preventative measure, which isn't true. Antibiotics are not there to prevent infection but to cure it. As shown in the studies here, most people with gbs will give birth and their baby will either not be colonised by gbs or the baby will be colonised but suffer no ill effects. Antibiotics are inconsequential to those people, but there is a minute part of the population who's baby will be colonised and become extremely ill from gbs. The Medical fraternity feel that antibiotics will cure any disease and have insignificant effects to those who have taken it unnecessarily.

The cochrane data base also says that although antibiotics reduces the rate of infection it hasn't been shown to alter the the rate of death.
This is how most of the medical interventions occur, better to do something rather than just wait.

Antibiotics - When in doubt, give them out!

aking unncessary antibiotics also carries a risk.

?1 in 10 chance of an allergic reaction.
?1 in 10,000 chance of a severe allergic reaction like anaphylaxis.
?1 in 100,000 chance of death from taking antibiotics.

There is also a chance that the antibiotics affect the baby by restricting growth of natural flora which affects immune development.

Remember , this may all be worth it if you have an infection but having a positive swab doesn't mean you have the infection but the risk of infection as listed below.

[me83]

I also was speaking to my midwife about this topic, as I was offered the swab last week. I was told that I could opt not to take the swab and that at birth I would be treated as though I was GBS negative. I was informed that with opting not to have the swab, all I have to do is monitor the baby's temperature for around 12 hours after birth and then if it does not rise, it is in the clear. If the temperature goes up, then the baby will need anti-biotics. That way there is no need for me to have the anti-biotics in labour.

Maybe you can ask about the option of taking baby's temperature after birth to monitor for infection? That way you can avoid having the meds in labour?

Hope you sort something out.

[Cally]

Could you try doing the swab again next week and see if you are stil positive?

Did the midwife have anything to say when you told them you were allergic to antibiotics?

[Tobily]

copied this from Lisa Barrett's website- she's a independant midwife (hope she doesn't mind) I didn't copy and paste it all cos it was long but you can google the rest if you like

This week I have been in contact with the hospital system and had extensive discussions about GBS. Group B Strep is a bacteria that can live in your vagina. It is transient - it comes and goes- 15 to 30% of us have it at one time. This is only a potential problem if you happen to be pregnant.

Strep B also known as GBS

There is a lot of scare mongering about GBS and it's implications, so what is the real deal?

Well first of all should you get the test? In the UK where screening isn't part of the antenatal testing circus this is what they have to say:
Estimated effects of bacteriological screening. Approximately 25% of mothers in the UK are likely to be GBS carriers. This estimate is based on a single study performed in the 1980s and it is possible that this study does not reflect the current picture. With the addition of women who present with other clinical risk factors for GBS disease, such as preterm labour, around 30% of all pregnant women would receive intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis if a bacteriological screening programme were to be introduced in the UK (this is approximately 204,000 women per annum).

n Australia GBS testing is routine at about 36 weeks. If this is positive, you are assumed to be positive at the time of birth. The standard hospital treatment for this is antibiotics when in labour. Just because you have gbs in your vagina doesn't mean you have an infection it means you have the risk of an infection. Just because you had gbs at 36 weeks doesn't mean you have it at term as it grows in cycles.

Antibotics are promoted as a preventative measure, which isn't true. Antibiotics are not there to prevent infection but to cure it. As shown in the studies here, most people with gbs will give birth and their baby will either not be colonised by gbs or the baby will be colonised but suffer no ill effects. Antibiotics are inconsequential to those people, but there is a minute part of the population who's baby will be colonised and become extremely ill from gbs. The Medical fraternity feel that antibiotics will cure any disease and have insignificant effects to those who have taken it unnecessarily.

The cochrane data base also says that although antibiotics reduces the rate of infection it hasn't been shown to alter the the rate of death.
This is how most of the medical interventions occur, better to do something rather than just wait.

Antibiotics - When in doubt, give them out!

aking unncessary antibiotics also carries a risk.

?1 in 10 chance of an allergic reaction.
?1 in 10,000 chance of a severe allergic reaction like anaphylaxis.
?1 in 100,000 chance of death from taking antibiotics.

There is also a chance that the antibiotics affect the baby by restricting growth of natural flora which affects immune development.

Remember , this may all be worth it if you have an infection but having a positive swab doesn't mean you have the infection but the risk of infection as listed below.

Would agree with all of the above.

Testing for GBS is a *very* hit and miss affair in the system at present. If it were the significant risk that some make it out to be you can bet your bottom dollar that wouldn't be the case, and pretty much everyone who didn't object would be tested just like they are for GD.

I've had two babies - one through the public system and one privately with a very cautious OB - I was not offered testing with either of them. Interestingly even the "cautious" OB felt that testing wasn't necessary because of the comes and goes aspect mentioned above.

I have supported many mothers as a doula who have never been offered testing - and others who have, come back positive and experienced all sorts of extra intervention as a result.

The risk of the baby contracting an infection are very, very low. And of course if you are allergic to the AB's that obviously poses a far greater "real" risk.

As with any antenatal testing it is a matter of weighing up risk vs benefit - in your particular case. Be aware that much of this testing boils down to butt-covering on the part of hospitals/providers - so you need to take initiative yourself to determine how that applies to you.

[*noni*e*]

Thanx guys..
Midwife said since I couldn't have them they would monitor bubs vitals closely for 24 hrs after the birth atleast before letting me go home.. That baby wouldn't have to be in special care or anything unless showing signs of infection but that there was a chance of serious pnumonia be it a very low one..

[Ozziehoffy]

I agree with the scare mongering with this. I didn't do the swab so they assumed me to be positive... HOWEVER, I refused ab during labour because they monitor bub anyway and so long as no fever in first 24 hours was ok to go home. Like it was said, just because you tested positive now does NOT mean you will be when giving birth. You don't have to have the ab's as they will watch your bub closely anyway