The impact of different cycle regimens on birthweight of singletons in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles of ovulatory women.

Objective: To investigate whether different endometrial preparation regimens affect neonatal outcomes after frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET).
Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: Tertiary care academic medical center.
Patients: A total of 3,639 patients with live-born singletons were categorized into three groups on the basis of the type of endometrial preparation regimens. Of these, 1,225, 2,136, and 278 live-born singletons were conceived through natural cycle FET, artificial cycle FET, and stimulated cycle FET, respectively.
Intervention(s): None.
Main Outcome Measures: The main outcomes were the measures of birthweight including the absolute mean birthweight, Z-score, low birthweight, high birthweight (HBW), small for gestational age, and large for gestational age (LGA).
Results: After controlling for a variety of covariates, singletons from the artificial cycle FET group had a higher mean birthweight and Z-score than those from the natural cycle FET group and stimulated cycle FET group. The risk of LGA infants significantly increased in the artificial cycle group (14.0%) than that in the natural cycle group (10.3%) and stimulated cycle group (7.6%). The risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the artificial cycle group (4.4%) was significantly higher than that in the natural cycle group (2.5%). The stimulated cycle FET singletons had a higher risk of low birthweight than the natural cycle FET singletons. The other perinatal outcomes, including the incidence of preterm birth, small for gestational age, and gestational diabetes mellitus, were comparable between the groups before or after adjustment for confounders.
Conclusions: Singletons from artificial cycle FET were associated with a higher risk of LGA infants, and natural cycle FET may be a better regimen for ovulatory women. Our results indicate a link between the absence of the corpus luteum and adverse perinatal outcomes, and further studies are needed to detect the underlying mechanism.
(Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)