Group B strep in urine

[Myira]

So I tested negative for the vaginal swabs in my OBs office about 15 days before I became symptomatic for Gbs in urine. I did a bit of research and found that the ACOG recommends immediate treatment during pregnancy if tested positive for any bacterial infection in urine including one caused by Gbs.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20000201/713.html
http://groupbstrep-ivil.tripod.com/id12.html
http://www.babycenter.com/0_group-b-streptococcus-screening_1647.bc

I am being treated but I fear I was symptomatic before the treatment started and that is freaking me out a bit. Apparently the usual urine sample in OBs office does not detect this, requires a urine culture. I do not know if I had a urine culture at all throughout this pregnancy. I just cannot put my mind to rest thinking about how long I may have had Gbs in urine but may have been asymptomatic.

Also I read that now that I have had Gbs in urine, I would need to be treated as Gbs positive and given antibiotics before and during labor.

But I cannot help but worry about my baby being exposed to it while I may have been asymptomatic.

What do I do to get any peace of mind.

[BayGirl2]

I'm not very familiar with the urine part, I assume that means the infection is active in your body? I'm sure there is some good research out there, and perhaps the more medically oriented people on this board can point you in the right direction.

I've been GBS positive for both pregnancies so I've done some research on that. There is some risk to the baby of contracting it through a vaginal birth, but its actually quite low. My hospital will give me 2 doses of penicillin before the delivery and that is it. They may also monitor the baby, and since they know I'm GBS positive any symptoms should be easy to notice. But again, its a very long shot that there will be any negative effects - the current ACOG guidelines are a "better safe than sorry" attitude, IMO. For me, I was really hoping to be negative this time bc I hated the penicillin IV, but its really not the end of the world.

What has your Dr. said about possible effects of an active infection on the baby? My non-educated take is that the baby is pretty well protected by your immune system while you are pregnant. I did have urine cultures earlier in my pregnancy as part of the usual screenings. So its possible the GBS just developed for you. I also developed a UTI early in my pregnancy and was given antibiotics, but there was no concern mentioned about any effects on the baby.
Hope this helps a bit.

[bw52]

Well, maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but it doesn't seem like there should be much reason to worry if I'm reading this right. I test positive for Gbs from blood work done very early in pregnancy (evidently that means I have high levels of it). But my dr told me that gbs isn't all that uncommon and not to worry. If you test positive they just hook you up to IV antibiotics before and during labor. She made it seem like it was no big deal. And it hasn't been for me. Granted, I haven't ever had any symptoms, though. I was always told that for future pregnancies I would just always be treated as though I have it and won't be specifically tested for it again--which has been the case.

Maybe you're asking something else and if so, sorry I don't understand. But if it's what I'm thinking than I see no reason to worry. It's seems like it's a pretty common thing that they deal with often. I hope that puts your mind at ease a little.

[Myira]

Well, may be my post was more ramblings so it wasn't as clear. PP, what you have mentioned about testing positive for GBS screening done between 35-37 weeks is right. You will not be treated at the time but only receive abx during labor as a precaution that it does not get transmitted to your baby is exactly what I read and was told too. Its common & I would not be so worried about this scenario.

I had bacterial urine infection caused by Group b strep. This in pregnancy, even when asymptomatic needs to be treated with abx based on what I read. In my case treatment wasn't started until I became symptomatic and that's what concerns me. I just wonder how long I may have had the infection before I had the symptoms and whether my baby would have been affected during that time.

Thanks for your responses baygirl & bw52. Sorry about the confusion.

[LizLemon]

Hope I can add something useful here. The issue is asymptomatic bacteruria (bacteria in the urine) versus UTI (bacteria in the urine + symptoms). Just having bacteria in the urine does not mean there is an infection. In most people, asymptomatic bacteruria is not treated - if it happens to be uncovered on a UA or urine culture, no antibiotics are prescribed. In pregnant women, asymptomatic bacteruria should always be treated.

From the information you provided, I can't tell if you had the asymptomatic bacteuria for a bit or just developed a UTI. Even with just a dip or UA of the urine, there are particular chemicals/patterns that can indicate the presence of bacteria or an infection. If you had anything significant going on at the time, I would expect the testing you had to demonstrate some abnormality. (You are correct in that a urine culture is needed to quantify and identify the specific bacteria.)

I really doubt there are any negative consequences to you or the baby. The important thing about GBS is eradicating it before the baby is born - and that is with vaginal GBS more so than UTIs. It sounds like things are being taken care of here - I'd recommend checking in with your doctor if you are still concerned about your particular situation.

[Myira]

Thanks LizLemon. Just saw you reply. I will be getting IV abx during labor and my urine culture came back negative last Monday for GBS. That makes me feel a little less anxious. I am still praying that my baby comes out healthy and has no complications due to my UTI, since I do not know how long I may have had the infection in urine but was asymptomatic before I got treated.