Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Childbirth

Share experiences and get support around labour, birth and recovery.

Original poster

Was your baby given antibiotics after birth?

35 replies

Annie75 · 27/08/2007 20:02

Just thought I'd ask out of interest. My baby was given a precautionary 5-day dose because they thought she might have an infection. It was an intravenous drip and felt fairly invasive. The bloods showed she was fine and we were in hospital for a good few more days than we otherwise would. I realised that three other mums I know have the same experience recently and wondered if this is becoming more 'standard' in hospitals as a precautionary measure. I'm sure it has its place, but am curious.

Anyone else's baby been given the same?

OP posts:
Wilkie · 27/08/2007 20:57

More info needed. Do you mean immediately following birth?

bookthief · 27/08/2007 21:04

Had you been diagnosed with Group B Strep? They might do it for that reason.

zimbojules · 27/08/2007 21:13

My DD1 had antibiotics for 4/5 days as I had PROM (prolonged rupture of membranes - over 48 hrs from waters breaking to birth) and her agpar at 1 min was 3, so she required resuscitation...

More precautionary than anything I think, but enough indicators to suggest that if she did have an infection/meningitis or something that they'd want to clear it up...

The drip was a hassle when breastfeeding!

coppertop · 27/08/2007 21:17

Ds1 did for the same reason as Zimbojoules' dd. It wasn't done intravenously though, not even when he eventually ended up in SCBU. Neither dd nor ds2 were given antibiotics.

coppertop · 27/08/2007 21:17

Zimbojules

Guitargirl · 27/08/2007 21:18

DD had antibiotics for 3 days following the birth as her bloods indicated a possible infection. She had a line in her hand (which kept coming out so they moved it to her foot) and we had to take her to SCBU every few hours or so for the drugs to be administered.

I was also given antibiotics as a precaution as I had such bad engorgement they thought I was going to develop mastitis (I didn't).

I think they do tend to err on the side of caution with babies that young as infections can get worse v quickly.

fawkeoff · 27/08/2007 21:18

i was diagnose with group strep b, my labour was too quick for them to give them to me so ds had to have the same thing done.

Original poster
Annie75 · 27/08/2007 21:19

Well, in my case it was on day 3 at hospital, but the other mums were within 24 hours after birth. I wasn't tested for Group B Strep and it wasn't cited as a reason. Thanks for replies so far.

OP posts:
TheArmadillo · 27/08/2007 21:22

Ds had 48hrs of them at 2 or 3 days old (we were still in hospital) cos of possible infection (turned out to be 'just' dehydration).

They were worried enough to do lumbar puncture and other tests, and to suddenly whisk him away immediately, so although it turned out he didn't need them am glad they erred on side of caution.

daizydoo · 27/08/2007 21:23

My DS had 5 days of antibiotics after developing jaundice, a high temp and wasnt feeding aged 1 day old. He was taken to special care and subject to a barrage of tests. All the tests came back negative and they put it all down to the 'trauma of birth'. Although I wish this had never happened, I'm glad he had the antibiotics as if it had been something more sinister and they had waited then I might not have the gorgeous little boy I have now.

oregonianabroad · 27/08/2007 21:25

my second had them. i have group b strep, so it is pretty standard, first ds got his dose throughme while I was in labour, second one didn't have time so had a drip in his hand, which made my knees weak.

although i would hesitate to take antibiotics myself unless it was absolutely necessary, i think it is better safe than sorry as someone i know suffered the sad loss of one twin (delivered by c-section, which is supposed to be almost free from risk of group b strep).

TheArmadillo · 27/08/2007 21:25

yeah we were told they couldn't afford to wait the 2 days it would take to grow cultures and do tests before giving him them if it was an infection as could get serious very quickly.

Am perfectly happy with what they did.

Wilkie · 27/08/2007 21:29

My DS had a temp of 38.7C at 10 days old and we were rushed into hospital for lumbar puncture, tests etc. He was hooked up to IVs straight away.

They do this because newborns should not get temperatures apparently becuase of the antibodies they have and it can be a sign of Meningitis/Group B Strep and other potentially fatal infections.

Although it was horrific and yes, felt invasive, I was pleased with what they did 'just in case'.

Thankfully it was a non-specific viral infection and we were home in 3 days.

Worst experience of my life though

MuffinMclay · 27/08/2007 21:41

Yes, for 2 weeks. Via a drip for 5 days, then orally.

He had chicken pox (or some virus with similar symptoms, they couldnt be 100% sure).

cantseemyfeet · 28/08/2007 00:58

I spent a week in hospital with my son after he developed a temp when he was 4 days old, they let him come home the next day, only for him to be rushed back in a day later, they got him straight on IV A/B and it was only 2 days later they found GBS in a swab they took of his cord. He wasnt improving though and despite the antibiotics his temp hit 40 3 days later. Have never been so bloody terrified but so glad that we were in hospital and that he was getting the antibiotics. They let him come home after a week and he is great now but they thought he had a viral infection on top of the other infections. I am pleased that they treated him with the antibiotics but I was pretty annoyed to hear that GBS is automatically tested for on pregnant women in other countries yet ours dont bother? I had no idea I had GBS, I didnt know anything about it until I read up about it when babe was ill but if it is so dangerous in new borns, why on earth arnt all pregnant women tested for it??

eidsvold · 28/08/2007 06:50

yes for weeks and weeks - she did have an infection amongst other things - heart failure etc and at one point had a canula in her head as they could not get a line in any other way.

She was born early due to IUGR and was born with a heart defect - infection could have killed her.

Wilkie · 28/08/2007 07:46

Cantseemyfeet - how terrifying and what a lucky escape. My sister's SIL's baby died in October 4 days old with undiagnosed GBS.

It makes me so so so that a) we are not automatically tested for it and b) are not given more information AND told about the private screening available for £32!

£32 would have saved her DS life

Yorkiegirl · 28/08/2007 07:54

Message withdrawn

SpookyMadMummy · 28/08/2007 07:59

DD2 had 3 days of IV antibiotics but stayed with me on the ward. The day after her birth the gynae doctor came to me as I was waiting for my lift home to tell me I had GBS and they missed it at delivery When I was in delivery the midwife kept telling me I wasn't in labour and then an hour after she had gone home I delivered DD2.

Original poster
Annie75 · 28/08/2007 08:50

Yes, I agree entirely. Apparently the risks are small with GBS which is why we're not routinely tested, but anecdoctally I've heard of enough women who have had probs because of it to make you wonder. Plus the approach isn't consistent across the UK - in some areas they'll offer it if you ask.

Really sorry to hear some of your experiences. It's obvious antibiotics have their place.

I think I was most bemused by the lack of info about what they were testing my baby for - and it's at a time when you're completely knackered and tearful anyway. It also felt like an interminably long time until I had reassurance she was okay after all. Guess it comes down to that old communication prob again... I spent the whole of my pregnancy avoiding any kind of drug, then wasn't given any info about the effect of antibiotics on a young baby. I guess it's worth being prepared for a situation like this if you're pregnant and giving birth in hospital.

OP posts:
Spink · 29/08/2007 16:01

sorry to hijack this - but a message for YORKIEGIRL - you're being looked for on another thread..

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/1367/379224?stamp=070829155839

thanks.

Lazycow · 29/08/2007 16:13

I had this happen. We had to stay in hospital for 5 days after the birth with me taking ds to the ICU every 6 hours for injections of antibiotics.

This was done becuase I'd been diagnosed with strep b before birth and when ds was born he was blue and didn't breathe fror a few minutes. Then when he did breathe he was grunting quite a bit so they were worried he might have an infection. They took a blood sample but the results take a few days to come back so they give antibiotics as a precaution while we waited the 4 days for the results. The results were negative so ds did have the antobiotics for no reason in the end.

The worst bit was the 5 day stay in hospital but tbh after the scare with his breathing at the birth I was pleased that we stayed a few days, though I was very glad to get home.

I also had iv antibiotics during the birth but there was only enough time to have two doses rather than the recommended three as the birth was quicker then most first time births.

The reason I was diagnosed with strep b was a result of a swab they took to confirm that I had thrush (recurring problem in my pregnancy). The diagnoses of strep b was given as a reult of that. They didn't specifically test for strep b.

Flibbertyjibbet · 29/08/2007 16:25

Exactly the same as Wilkie. I went out of the room for the lumbar puncture and catheter in his 5 week old willy though.
The consultant said they just don't take any risks with little babies so they put them on antibiotics while they wait for all the other test results.
I was absolutely happy for him to have IV antibiotics as if things go wrong in a baby that age it can go VERY wrong VERY quickly.

funnypeculiar · 29/08/2007 16:28

ditto zimbojules - although in my waters broke less than 24 hours before I gave birth ... but ds was also slightly prem, so suspect they were being cautious.

Wilkie · 29/08/2007 16:51

FlibbertyJibbet - I wasn't there for the lumbar puncture/catheter or IV line going in but I could hear him screaming. Fucking awful worst time of my life.

I have to say though, the drs and nurses were FABULOUS. I know the NHS can be crap but we got superb treatment and I would much rather they erred on the side of caution.

Swipe left for the next trending thread