-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: GBS From: R. Daniel Braun (rd.braun@gmail.com) Tue Aug 16 19:37:15 2005 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Len2976@aol.com: "Re: caulophyllum thalictroides tablets+ IOL" Previous message: JSBowpat@aol.com: "Caulophyllum thalictroides" In reply to: Stmidwife@aol.com: "Re: GBS" Next in thread: DoctorJoe@aol.com: "Re: GBS" On 8/16/05, Stmidwife@aol.com <Stmidwife@aol.com> wrote: > > Thank you for posting this, very interesting.. > > 1. GBS disease is the most frequent cause of infection in the > neonate. Assessment of the risks of GBS disease for an individual mother and > baby should be made by obstetricians and midwives, and timely and > appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis considered where necessary. Guidelines > should be in place and regularly audited. > > Not any more. Now it is E.coli resistant to ampicillin because of all the ampicillin we have been giving to treat GBBS. > 1. There is insufficient evidence at present to recommend universal > antenatal screening for GBS in the UK. > > The people at Parkland several years ago in two diferent studies showed that No screening and giving every baby an injection of Aqueous Pen G in the delivery room (I think it was 25000 units if under 2500 Gms and 50000 u if over.) This was more effective and cost, at that time, about $0.25 per pregnancy. This makes a lot more sense. There is something wrong with the baby, not the mother. Only 1 of every 400 colonized babies actually gets an infection. Let's find out what is wrong with that baby and go from there, instead of being stupid and giving antibiotics to all mothers in labor. > 1. Any antibiotic administration to the mother in labour for GBS > disease may have significant implications for the neonate and their > subsequent management. Antibiotic choice and dose and timing should be > considered carefully and the rationale and details communicated to the > paediatricians caring for the neonate. > > Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:16:22 +0000 > From: "benjamin sharp" <sharp_benjamint@hotmail.com> > To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net > Subject: Re: GBS > Message-ID: <BAY101-F5A33DDAC5747CCDFEFC6A94B00@phx.gbl> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > Sue > We take a slightly different approach. I enclose the RCOG guidelines for > your inspection. If they don't come through then go to http://www.rcog.org.uk<http://http://www.rcog.org.uk/>and > go to the guidelines section. I find the rationale given for NOT > supporting > screening particularly well reasoned. I'd be interested to know what you > chaps think (that's 'chaps' in the bi-gender sense of the word!) > -- R. Daniel Braun Kinky for Governor Next message: Len2976@aol.com: "Re: caulophyllum thalictroides tablets+ IOL" Previous message: JSBowpat@aol.com: "Caulophyllum thalictroides" In reply to: Stmidwife@aol.com: "Re: GBS" Next in thread: DoctorJoe@aol.com: "Re: GBS"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Tue Dec 2 04:47:04 2008

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.