Extrasystoles or short bradycardias of the newborn seldom require subsequent 24‐hour electrocardiographic monitoring

AIM: To retrospectively assess the indications for and findings on 24‐hour electrocardiographic (Holter) monitoring in newborns, focussing on bradycardias and extrasystoles. METHODS: Data included 337 term‐born infants. Holter indications were categorised into bradycardias below 80 beats per minute, extrasystoles, any tachycardia and other. Heart rate below 60 beats per minute, pathological atrioventricular conduction, supraventricular or ventricular tachycardia, or either atrial premature contractions over 10% or ventricular premature contractions over 5% of total beats were defined as significant arrhythmia on Holter. RESULTS: The median age was 6 days (range: 2–62 days). Bradycardia (42%) or extrasystoles (32%) were the most common Holter indications. Fifty‐three infants (16%) had significant arrhythmia on Holter. Heart disease or 12‐lead electrocardiogram expressing extrasystoles or conduction abnormalities were associated with significant arrhythmias (p = 0.046 and p < 0.001, respectively). Twenty‐seven of 109 infants (25%) with extrasystoles as a Holter indication had abnormal Holter results, but only seven (6.4%) had significant arrhythmia on Holter if the 12‐lead electrocardiogram was normal. No pathology was found behind bradycardias below 80 beats per minute in the absence of heart disease. CONCLUSION: Among term newborns with extrasystoles or bradycardias, Holter monitoring could be targeted to infants with heart disease or abnormal electrocardiograms.