Lifelines NEXT:a prospective birth cohort adding the next generation to the three-generation Lifelines cohort study

Epidemiological research has shown there to be a strong relationship between preconceptional, prenatal, birth and early-life factors and lifelong health. The Lifelines NEXT is a birth cohort designed to study the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic determinants on health and disease in a four-generation design. It is embedded within the Lifelines cohort study, a prospective three-generation population-based cohort study recording the health and health-related aspects of 167,729 individuals living in Northern Netherlands. In Lifelines NEXT we aim to include 1500 pregnant Lifelines participants and intensively follow them, their partners and their children until at least 1 year after birth. Longer-term follow-up of physical and psychological health will then be embedded following Lifelines procedures. During the Lifelines NEXT study period biomaterials-including maternal and neonatal (cord) blood, placental tissue, feces, breast milk, nasal swabs and urine-will be collected from the mother and child at 10 time points. We will also collect data on medical, social, lifestyle and environmental factors via questionnaires at 14 different time points and continuous data via connected devices. The extensive collection of different (bio)materials from mother and child during pregnancy and afterwards will provide the means to relate environmental factors including maternal and neonatal microbiome composition) to (epi)genetics, health and developmental outcomes. The nesting of the study within Lifelines enables us to include preconceptional transgenerational data and can be used to identify other extended families within the cohort

Better perineal outcomes in sitting birthing position cannot be explained by changing from upright to supine position for performing an episiotomy

Contains fulltext : 170805.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: women who give birth in supine position are more likely to have an episiotomy than women who give birth in sitting position. A confounding effect may be that women in upright positions in second stage of labour are asked to lie down if a professional needs to perform an episiotomy. This prospective cohort study aimed to determine whether this factor can explain the lower rate of episiotomy in sitting compared to supine position. METHODS: data from 1196 women who had a spontaneous, vaginal birth were analysed. Positions during second stage and at birth were carefully recorded. Three groups of birthing positions were compared in multivariable analyses: 1) horizontal during second stage and supine at birth (horizontal/supine), 2) horizontal and upright during second stage and supine at birth (various/supine), 3) sitting at birth regardless of the position in second stage. Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for known risk factors for perineal damage. FINDINGS: women in sitting position at birth compared to those in the horizontal/supine group had a lower episiotomy rate (adjusted OR 0.28;95%-CI 0.14-0.56) and a non-significant higher intact perineum rate (adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.96-2.04). Women in the various/supine group compared to the horizontal/supine group had a similar episiotomy rate (adjusted OR 1.12;95%-CI 0.69-1.83). CONCLUSIONS: we did not confirm our hypothesis that more women in supine compared to sitting position have an episiotomy because women in upright position are asked to lie down if an episiotomy is necessary