Sorry to be posting about this again! While researching GBS testing, I found that there's a rapid test that can be done at the time of delivery. Right now, I would be tested for GBS at 35 weeks. 93% of people tested at 35-37 weeks test the same during labor, which is a high percentage. However, testing at birth only detects the higher level of bacteria while the earlier pre-natal testing tests if there is any colonization, with little information about whether the level is high. Because of this, I wonder why rapid testing isn't routine instead of testing pre-natally (since it would better show who had a higher risk and would reduce the 7% of people who either no longer or now do have GBS colonization) - what would be the downside of declining testing now but testing during labor?
If you have a quick labor, there may not be time to get antibiotics in four hours before birth. If your GBS status is unknown, then the baby is treated as GBS positive.
If you rupture before labor, your GBS status determines what care you receive, and how long you can wait for labor. If you're negative, you can usually wait at least 24 hours for labor; if positive, you need prophylaxis.
Your local hospital may not be using the rapid screen. This is the biggest reason I can think of.
I personally would not get the test at all. I think that it is a lot of hype, your risk of your baby getting it is extremely low and antibiotics should not be given to a pregnant womyn unless absolutely necessary- they cause far more harm than good. Not to mention that it's never been prevent hat these antibiotics help if the baby gets GBS.
If you must get it, I'd do the rapid screen. GBS is in all womyn, some just have more than others, which is normal. If you get tested at 35 weeks, you could be positive then and then not be when you give birth and then you're pumping all these antibiotics into your babies system for no reason. Not to mention wiping out all the good bacteria that is such a gift to the baby of yoni birth.
It's your decision ultimately and I hope you get the results and the outcome you want. Happy birthing!
All women (and men) carry GBS, but most are not colonized in the lower GI or in the vagina, which is where the risk is.
Obviously, it's your choice. But I've seen babies with GBS sepsis, and while I probably overthought every other care decision in my pregnancy, for me the screen was a no-brainer. Sepsis is rare, yes, but when a newborn goes septic they go very, very fast.
My aunt had twin boys and one of the babies died becuase she got the test but wouldn't take the IV while in labor. She didn't want to have the medicine becuase she "didn't want to hurt the babies" but if she would have gotten the IV Lucas wouldn't have got menigitis and died 4 weeks later. The doctors never could figuar out why Austin didn't get the meningitis and Lucas did. It's been 10 years since that happened and my aunt and uncle are still not over it. Please re-think your descion on what you want to do. If my aunt would have gotten the IV Lucas still would be alive and we could have been spared this terriable tradity and heartache.
If you're worried, yet not convinced about antibiotics, you can always do yogurt douches, garlic and vitamin C.