Huggies Forum

Huggies® Ultimate
Newborn Nappies

Learn More

group b streptococcus Lock Rss

i was just wondering if anyone else has been told that they have this infection? i was told at 25 weeks that i have it but i wasnt informed at all about it. the hospital i had the swabs at didnt even inform me i was told a week later by the midwife at the hosital where i will be having bub but she didnt explain it to me. so wondering if there is anyone else out there that i can compair my pregnancy with as ive had alot of trouble and its my 3rd child?
I had suspected strep B as missed the test. Its a bacteria in your vagina that can infect bub when passing through the birth canal. I think they can give antibiotics when diagnosed but not so sure i went into labour before they could test me. You will have to have a drip of strep B antibiotics when go into hospital and you should be told to go in earlier into your labour.
I too carry this bacteria which showed up in a blood test. It is not dangerous to you at the moment, only to your baby during birth and having antiobiotics now will not do anything.

You are given a drip of antiobiotics during labour to make sure the baby doesn't get infected when they pass through the birth canal..
Somebody i talked to said they were given anitbiotics for strep B but i was told (when i went into hospital after waters breaking) you are given a drip once your in labour and after getting checked etc first thing they did was give me the strep B antibodies. I too thought antibiotics weren't needed till labour started so a bit confusing.
It's interesting that no one has talked to you about it, but different carers have different perspectives on GBS. The issue that I personally have with this bacteria is that it is a bacteria that normally 'hangs out' in the vagina (or around the bladder, anus and throat), but during pregnancy it can colonise and be passed on to baby during birth. The problem with the bacteria is that it is transient...which means that you can have it at 25 weeks and then again at 30 weeks or not at all. We actually refused to be screened for this because of it's transient nature and because we weren't 'at risk'; in our minds it's no good knowing that I have it at 30 weeks and then making an assumption that I have it at the birth because I might not have.

Antibiotics administered in labour is the course of 'treatment', however no studies have proven that it actually does anything. In fact I know two women who had antibiotics, the babies had antibiotics after they were born and they BOTH got sick, and one of them nearly died. Another factor for us was that I have precipitous labours (very fast) and they like to administer them every 4 hours, and though I'd only had one previous birth, he was born in less than that time and we expected the second one to be even faster and he was.

I think we should be watching ALL newborns for signs of GBS infection, not just the ones where we think we know the status of the mum. There's also two kinds, which most people don't know; there is early onset which is at or within a couple of days of birth but then there is also 'late' onset where baby may appear fine and then develop symptoms of GBS infection a week or MONTHS later.

There's heaps of information online, this one for example is is from a site for Victoria. If you are worried, talk to your OB/midwife, but we also did our own research before making a decision about what to do.

My OB has advised me that next year they will not be testing for GBS anymore. The antibiotics were causing more issues with the mothers than the GBS was with the babies.

I tested + for GBS with 1st DD, when my waters broke I was advised to go to the hospital to have the antibiotics.

Posted by: mel2407
My OB has advised me that next year they will not be testing for GBS anymore.

DS1 was born in the UK nearly 6.5 years ago and I'd never even heard of this test and even now they don't routinely screen for it there. It seems to be a case of 'over management' because a small percentage of babies were getting it and becoming sick or dying. Not saying anyone wants to see babies die, I certainly don't but the whole 'policy' seems backwards to me and may mean that some babies are at greater risk because everyone thinks they are 'safe' cause mum was negative; but then the majority are fine, even when mum tests positive.

Sign in to follow this topic