Group B +, STM, timing on getting to hospital

Lisadi

 With DS I was induced for low fluid and was not group b +.

 This time, I'm hoping not to be induced, but just learned that I'm group b +. Since second babies can come faster, I'm wondering how to time going to the hospital? Every labor's different, and I've heard that 4-1-1 doesn't always apply. My doula mentioned having contractions that are a good 1.5 minute long before going.
 But, now with the group B, it would be good to get that 4 hours before baby's birth. I'm only about 15 minutes from the hospital, and I've heard a bag of IV fluid can take about 20 minutes to administer.

 I'll be in contact with my doctor and doula when the time comes, but wondering if anyone has any personal experience to share.

ncbelle

It's really hard to know how quickly you will or won't go.  I was GBS+ both times and just went in when it felt like it was time (I don't remember the exact timing but rather that things were getting to the point where I wasn't going to be comfortable riding in the car).  With my second, I got the second dose of antibiotics right as I was about to push.

hamiltks10

I was GBS+ with my first son.  This might not be for you...but after the research I did and looking at the statistics, I was comfortable waiting to go to the hospital until late in labor.  

For me, the risk is so low that the baby will end up with an infection ESPECIALLY if they get at least 1 dose of antibiotics prior to the birth (regardless of how many hours before giving birth you get the antibiotics).   

My 1st LO was born just 20 or 30 minutes after getting to the hospital.  I was able to get 1 dose of antibiotics prior to him being born.  My care providers didn't seem concerned one bit and my DS had no issues at all.

Again...some might not be comfortable with this, but I was and it worked for me.

J&Jaggies06

I was + too and this was my 2nd. My 1st was included and a 12 hrs labor. This time my water broke and we left immediately! It took them almost 2 hrs to get my IV started even though I informed them of it right away and wanted it started right away. Turns out my labor was only 4 hrs. The drip had just finished when I felt the need to push so needless to say. Even though I got there as fast as I could it wasn't enough time. They kept us 48 hrs since the antibiotic wasnt in me for 4 hrs before I delivered, that was the hospital policy. My MW and doula said that timing is more for FTMs so they just wanted me to look for contractions getting more intense instead.

CLLDLL

I was GBS+ with DS2.  I talked with my OB about how soon I should leave since I was 4 cm dilated at my 38 week appointment.  She said as long as we were there an hour or so before pushing so we could get at least once dose of antibiotics she'd be fine. We left for the hospital when I just had a feeling that it was "the right time".  They gave me 1 dose of antibiotics.  It took about 10-15 minutes to administer the dose. It burned going in, but they just put some ice on my arm to help.  I gave birth less than an hour later.  LO was just fine.

I say do what feels comfortable for you.  Regardless of how close or far contractions are, go when it just feel "right". 

stever

I don't want to suggest that GBS is no big deal, but in my case it wasn't. I tested positive while pregnant with DS2 and my labor only lasted 4 hours. By the time I got to the hospital I only had time for one AB dose. They monitored DS more closely at the hospital and gave me a list of things to look for once we were discharged, but it all worked out.

Good luck!

Lisadi

Thanks all for info. I had read a few concerns about antibiotics used with LO so soon, possibly causing resistance to it later. And some studies stating that regardless of antibiotics the outcomes were about the same.
I'll still opt for the safe side and try to get it in time. (1 dose before birth.)
Here's to hoping LO doesn't come early, thereby increasing odds that he won't swallow fluid!
Ugh. I asked a friend who had it about the burning sensation. She said it didn't. I recall that with the Pit, and was hoping to avoid needles alltogether as I'm a big wuss.

hamiltks10

I don't recall it burning at all...but I was also 10cm and my body was pushing.  So I think that pain probably trumped the burning, if there was any.  : )

HannahsHope

I was GBS pos with my 2nd. My water broke, and they told me I needed to come in. I wasn't induced or anything, but because the theory of 2nd babies coming faster, they wanted me to come in and get my antibiotics. So I did, and it worked out fine. 

natalie202

So, I worried going into my second birth about making it in time for the antibiotics. My labor, once it got started, was fast and furious, and even though I intended to arrive earlier and was communicating with my provider about my progress throughout the morning, it ended up that I arrived only 16 minutes before LO was born. No time for antibiotics. They watched him carefully and did a blood culture later that day and gave us a list of symptoms to watch for once home. He's perfectly fine. My birthing team reassured me that because he came so fast AND because my water wasn't broken long at all before he was born, the risks were really quite low.

I tell you this not to downplay the importance of the antibiotics, but to let you know that even if you don't make it on time, there are practices in place to take care of the situation and most likely, everything will be a-okay.

pdilly2b

I was GBS+ with my first. Even though I got 3 rounds of antibiotics, they kept us 48 hrs despite bring told beforehand that we only had to stay if I hadn't gotten at least 2 doses. If I am + this time, I'm not going to let it influence when I go. For me, I think the risks of being in the hospital too long are greater than not getting "enough" doses of antibiotics and they apparently would keep us for monitoring regardless.

alliejoe

I was GBS+ with DS and didn't meet the pediatric departments time requirements for the antibiotic doses so I ended up in the hospital for closer to 3 days rather than the 24-48 hours.  My MWs were ok with everything and had I pushed our discharge I probably would have been released, but as a FTM I didn't know/think to. 

greenmama2013

I was GBS+ with my first as well, and also am with this one. I have an hour long car ride to the hospital, and I asked my midwife about timing at my last appointment, and she told me as long as we get in one dose we're good. 

noraraeuc

Statistically speaking, treatment for GBS does not improve outcome. Less than 1 percent of all babies will have issues whether you treat or not. GBS is naturally occuring, you can test positive one day and negative the next. Antibiotics make outcome more poor, especially long term. Babies who have issues almost always have predisposing factors. From a midwifery standpoint, antibiotic treatment is not worth the risk. Natural treatment is much more ideal, just keep your immune system(s) strong with nutrition.

Water birth even further reduces risk.

wintersong

@noraraeuc:
Water birthing reduces the risk? I have heard that it increases the risk of infection OR that it does not affect the chance of infection, but never reduces it--its so interesting what you can learn just from reading other people's posts. :-) I think I saw on another post that you are in training to become a midwife--is there a book or journal or something that you are studying with information about the benefits of water birth? What's the name of it? (I am a giant nerd and love researching things--I know, not exactly the way most people like to spend a Saturday!)

Yogakitten

My understanding is that IV treatment of the mother is very effective in preventing early-onset GBS in infants (where infants get sick in the first week) but not necessarily late-onset (1 week through 3 months). I certainly plan on getting antibiotics if I'm positive (which I probably am judging from the voicemail I just got from my drs office).