Pediatric Pulmonology 51:189–195 (2016)

A Comparison of Invasive and Noninvasive Ventilation in

Children Less Than 1 Year of Age: A Long-Term
Follow-Up Study
1,2
Tamizan Kherani, MD, Aarti Sayal,1 Suhail Al-Saleh, MBBS, MSc,1,2 Priya Sayal, BSc,
1

and Reshma Amin, MD, MSc1,2*

Summary. Background: We report on the long-term survival of children initiated on invasive and
noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NiPPV) before the age of 1 to assess the safety and
efficacy of long-term ventilation at home. Methods: A chart review was performed of children
initiated on long-term home mechanical ventilation (LTHV) before the age of 1 year, at The Hospital
for Sick Children (SickKids), Canada, between January 1991 and April 2014. Results: We report
on 51 children. Twenty-five children (49%) received NiPPV and 26 (51%) received invasive
mechanical ventilation via tracheostomy (IMV). There was one NiPPV initiation between 1991 and
2001, the rest were in subsequent years. Most children had a “musculoskeletal disorder” in the
NiPPV cohort, n ¼ 14 (56%) and a “central nervous system” disorder in the IMV cohort, n ¼ 13
(50%). The pCO2 improved with the initiation of NiPPV, P ¼ <0.0001. Of the 25 subjects initiated
on NiPPV, eight (32%) are currently being followed as compared to 22 (84%) in the IMV cohort.
Seven (28%) of the NiPPV group were weaned off ventilation as compared to three (11.5%) in the
IMV cohort. There were two NiPPV treatment failures. There were more deaths in the NiPPV
cohort: eight (32%) versus two (7.6%) in the IMV cohort. Four of the deaths in the NiPPV cohort
were in children in whom a palliative approach was taken. None were due to NiPPV technical
failure. Conclusions: Based on this long-term follow-up study, NiPPV use in infants appears to be a
viable long-term ventilation strategy. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2016;51:189–195.
ß 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Key words: ventilation; pediatric; non-invasive; neuromuscular.

INTRODUCTION particular importance as the majority of ventilators used

There have been a number of regional and national
surveys from around the world demonstrating exponential
growth in the pediatric long-term home mechanical
ventilation (LTVH) population in the past few decade.1–18
The significant increase is due to advances in medical care
and assistive technologies partnered with an increasing
number of decisions being made to institute long-term
ventilation in children who would have been previously
palliated.19,20 Additionally, there has been a deeper
understanding of the family centered benefits for
transitioning out of acute care facilities.
Emerging in the last few decades in the LTHV
population is the increasing use of noninvasive positive
pressure ventilation to manage more patients as opposed
to reliance on invasive mechanical ventilation via
tracheostomy alone. In many programs worldwide, the
majority of children are being managed noninvasively as
compared to invasively.1,5,6,12,14,15,18 Although the pedi-
atric noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NiPPV)
population has been described in the international
literature, there is a paucity of literature reporting on
the safety and effectiveness of NiPPV in infants. This is of
in children less than 1 year of age for noninvasive
ventilation at home are not approved for use below a
weight of 30 kg. Therefore, an understanding of the
clinical outcomes of “off label noninvasive ventilation” in
young children is essential to facilitate clinical decision
1
Divisionof Respiratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto,
Canada.
2
Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Conflict of interest: None.
Funding source: None reported.

Correspondence to: Reshma Amin, MD, 4539, Hill Wing, Division of
Respiratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University
Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada.
E-mail: reshma.amin@sickkids.ca
Received 8 October 2014; Accepted 6 May 2015.
DOI 10.1002/ppul.23229
Published online 16 June 2015 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

ß 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

190 Kherani et al.

making with families. To our knowledge, Markstrom’s
case series is the only report to date which has described
the outcomes of an infant cohort.21 NiPPV was shown to
effectively reduce the carbon dioxide levels in all
infants.21
Our aim was to report on the long-term survival of
children initiated on NiPPV before the age of one to assess
the safety and efficacy of NiPPV as compared to a
comparator cohort of invasively ventilated children, the
current gold standard for children less than 1 year of age.
METHODS
A prospective clinical database was used for a
retrospective chart review of pediatric patients who
were initiated on long-term home mechanical ventilation
(LTMV) and followed in the Home Ventilation Program at
The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), Canada
between January 1991 and April 2014. For this study,
only patients initiated on LTMV, who were less than
1 year of age, were included. LTMV was defined as the
daily use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or
NiPPV for at least 3 months, in the patient’s home or in a
long-term residential facility. Children using NiPPV were
initially identified and then a comparator cohort of IMV
children was identified. Children using continuous
positive airway pressure (CPAP) were excluded. Ventila-
tion was initiated in either the sleep laboratory or the
intensive care unit (ICU).
Variables chosen for examination were as follows: (1)
gender; (2) age of patients currently being followed for
ventilation; (3) age at initiation of ventilation; (4) date of
initiation; (5) type of hospital ward for the initiation of
ventilation; (6) type of ventilation; (7) duration of ventilation
use per 24-hr day; (8) duration of ventilation usage (years);
(9) residence at home versus a long-term care facility; (10)
reason for ventilation (adapted from Wallis et al.5); (11) other
technology used in the home (e.g., supplemental oxygen,
enterostomy feeding tube, ventriculoperitoneal shunt); (12)
current disposition of the patient; (13) CO2 (mmHg) before
and after the initiation of ventilation; and (14) changes in
respiratory technology.
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the entire
study population, as well as ventilation subgroups (i.e.,
IMV or NiPPV). Results are presented as frequencies, or
medians and interquartile ranges as appropriate. The
Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare non-
parametric continuous variables. The chi-square test
was used to compare categorical variables. Paired t-tests
were used as appropriate. A P-value <0.05 was
considered significant. Graph Pad Prism 5.0 (GraphPad
Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA) was used for all statistical
analysis.
The Research Ethics Board (REB) at SickKids,
Toronto, Canada reviewed and approved the study
protocol (REB 1000020884). As this was a retrospective
study without any identifying data, the REB deemed
informed consent unnecessary.
RESULTS
Fifty-one children initiated on LTHVat less than 1 year
of age were included in this review. Twenty-five children
(49%) received NiPPV and 26 (51%) receive IMV. The
demographic information for this cohort is shown in
Table 1. There was no difference (P ¼ 0.1) in the median
and interquartile range (IQR) for age at the time of
initiation between the NiPPV group, 0.6 (IQR 0.4–0.7)
years versus the IMV group, 0.4 (IQR 0.1–0.7) years.
There were no gender differences between both groups
(P ¼ 1.0). The median duration of ventilation was
different between ventilatory subgroups, 4.2 (IQR 1.6–
9.9) years versus 1.0 (IQR 0.4–3.5) years, P ¼ 0.001, IMV
and NiPPV, respectively. The majority of the patients
lived at home. There were no significant differences in the
use of additional technologies at home between the two
ventilatory subgroups.
The majority of the invasively ventilated patients were
initiated in the ICU (88.5%). The location of NiPPV
initiation was as follows: 72% (n ¼ 18) in the ICU, 21%

TABLE 1— Demographic Characteristics of the Study Population

Characteristic NiPPV n ¼ 25 IMV n ¼ 26 P-value

Male, n (%) 15 (60%) 15 (58%) 1.0
Age of active patients, median (IQR) years1 6.2 (1.7–9.0) 4.9 (2.7–10.8) 0.7
Age of initiation of ventilation, median (SD), years 0.6 (0.4–0.7) 0.4 (0.1–0.7) 0.1
Years on ventilation, median (IQR) years 1.0 (0.4–3.5) 4.2 (1.6–9.9) 0.001
Length of time spent using mechanical ventilation nocturnal only, n (%) 25 (100%) 17 (65%) 0.002
Resides at home, n(%) 24 (96%) 23 (88%) 0.6
Supplemental oxygen 7 (28%) 4 (15%) 0.3
Enterostomy feeding tube 19 (76%) 18 (69%) 0.8
VP shunt 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 1.0
1
Date provided for active patients based on NiPPV (n ¼ 8), IMV (n ¼ 22).
Bold values are statistically significant with P-values < 0.05

Pediatric Pulmonology
 Noninvasive Ventilation in Infants 191

(n ¼ 5) on the hospital ward, and 13% (n ¼ 2) in the sleep

96 Number of Ventilation Initiations

8
laboratory. For the IMV cohort, two children were NiPPV
initiated at other acute care hospitals and the remainder IMV
were initiated in the ICU of our institution. There were 6
over nine times (n ¼ 5 vs. 46) more total ventilatory
initiations between 2002 and 2013, as compared to 4
between 1991 and 2002 (see Fig. 1). For NiPPV subgroup,
there was one NiPPV initiation between 1991 and 2001, as 2
compared to 24 initiations between 2002 and 2013.
The pre- and post-NIV blood gases are shown in 0
Table 2. The majority of these blood gases were obtained

98 7

00 9

02 1

3
04 3

06 5

08 7

10 9

12 1
19 199

20 199

20 200

01
20 200

20 200

20 200

20 200

20 201
as capillary blood gases and were taken between 8 am and

-2
-

4 pm. The median (IQR) pCO2 immediately prior to
NiPPV initiation was 58.0 (50.0–82.3) mmHg. The
median (IQR) pCO2 after NiPPV initiation with CO2
normalization between 35 mmHg to 45 mmHg was 43.0
(IQR 39.8–45.0) mmHg. The pCO2 significantly im-
proved with the initiation of NiPPV, P ¼ <0.0001 (see
Fig. 2). The median (IQR) length of time between the two
pCO2 measurements was 0.30 (IQR 0.05–0.62) months.
Table 3 lists the indications for long-term ventilation by
major diagnostic category. There were significant differ-
ences in the indication for ventilation by diagnostic
-
19
Fig. 1. The number of children initiated on noninvasive and
invasive long-term mechanical ventilation at home from 1996 to
2013.
category between the two ventilatory subgroups,
P ¼ 0.002. The reason for ventilation was “musculoskel-
etal” in origin in the largest proportion of total ventilated
group, n ¼ 19 (37.2%). The highest percentage of children

TABLE 2— Pre-NIV and Post-NIV Blood Gases for the Study Cohort

Pre NIV Gases Post NIV Gases

Length of time from NIV

Patient Type of gas Time of day Support prior to NIV Type of gases Time of day initiation to normalization (days)
1 Venous 14:45 None Venous 11:10 38.1
2 Arterial 8:45 IþV1 Arterial 10:45 2.1
3 Arterial 8:50 IþV Arterial 8:55 0.9
4 Capillary 6:30 IþV Venous 19:12 18.0
5 Capillary 7:05 None Capillary 10:05 3.0
6 Venous 12:20 None Arterial 16:20 0.90
7 Capillary 15:40 CPAP Capillary 8:45 0
8 Capillary 13:10 CPAP Venous 12:50 17.1
9 Venous 14:25 CPAP Capillary 15:15 5.1
10 Venous 13:50 None Venous 9:10 18.9
11 Arterial 19:55 CPAP Arterial 23:10 324.0
12 Capillary 11:20 CPAP Capillary 12:27 17.1
13 Venous 16:10 IþV Capillary 23:15 5.1
14 Venous 16:20 CPAP Capillary 6:25 18.9
15 Arterial 4:15 None Arterial 11:50 0
16 Capillary 23:15 CPAP Capillary 10:35 2.01
17 Capillary 6:25 None Venous 14:42 324.0
18 Arterial 5:40 IþV Venous 9:45 12.0
19 Venous 22:48 None Capillary 6:48 2.1
20 Arterial 6:00 CPAP Venous 15:35 1260.9
21 Capillary 5:45 CPAP Capillary 10:15 9.0
22 Capillary 3:18 CPAP Capillary 19:25 12.0
23 Unknown Unknown None Unknown Unknown 02
24 Unknown Unknown CPAP Unknown Unknown 03
25 Unknown Unknown CPAP Unknown Unknown 17.1
1
Intubated and ventilated.
2
NiPPV started for tachypnea, not hypercarbia.
3
NiPPV started during PSG and improved during the overnight study.

Pediatric Pulmonology
192 Kherani et al.

hospital with a respiratory illness per year of ventilation

100
was not significantly different (P ¼ 0.76) in the NiPPV
PaC02 (mmHg)

and IMV group, with a median (IQR) of 21.7 (1.5–7.6)

80 and 20.1 (7.6–53.6) days, respectively. The outcomes of
the 51 children are summarized in Table 4. Of the 25
60 subjects initiated on NiPPV, eight (32%) are currently
being followed as compared to 21 (81%) in the IMV
40 cohort. Twenty-eight (n ¼ 7) percent of the NiPPV group
was weaned off ventilation as compared to three (12%) in
the IMV cohort. There were two treatment failures in the
NiPPV cohort (8%). One child was not adherent to NiPPV
st
e
Pr

Po and the other child went to invasive ventilation via

Fig. 2. The PaCO2 (mmHg) pre- and post-NiPPV initiation. Data
tracheostomy.
are represented as median (interquartile range). There were more deaths in the NiPPV cohort: eight
(32%) versus two (8%) in the IMV cohort (Table 5). The
median age at the time of death was 1.1 years and 3.0 years
were affected by “musculoskeletal disorders” for the for the NiPPV and IMV groups, P ¼ 0.4, respectively. The
NiPPV children, n ¼ 14 (56%) and by “central nervous median duration of ventilation at the time of death was not
system” disorders for the invasively ventilated children, significantly different between the two cohorts, 0.4 years
n ¼ 13 (50%). versus 2.9 years, P ¼ 0.1. In the IMV cohort, one patient
Of the 25 children receiving NiPPV, 12 (48%) patients died from sepsis after developing a pneumonia, which
were previously on CPAP, five (20%) patients were progressed to acute respiratory distress syndrome
intubated and ventilated in the ICU, and eight (32%) (ARDS). The other death was from an unknown cause.
patients were not receiving any form of technology prior In the NiPPV group, four of these patients were receiving
to NiPPV initiation. All NiPPV and IMV patients were palliative care. Patient NiPPV #1 had spinal muscular
sent home as per standard of care, including pulse atrophy (SMA) Type I. The patient developed increasing
oximetry monitoring. The number of days admitted to secretions and recurrent pneumonia and died at home.
Patient NiPPV #2 had SMA Type 1 and was prescribed
NiPPV for respiratory support. However, this was
discontinued prior to the time of death due to increasing
TABLE 3— The Etiology of the Need for Ventilatory Support
According to Type of Mechanical Ventilation agitation and restlessness. Patient NiPPV #5 also had SMA
Type 1. He was found to be unresponsive, during the day at
Cause of ventilation Major subgroup NiPPV IMV home. Withdrawal of care in the ICU occurred 3 days later.
Central nervous system Congenital central 2 7 Patient NiPPV #8 had infantile Pompe’s disease and
(n ¼ 16, 31.4%) hypoventilation associated hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. She was pre-
syndrome scribed NiPPV to support her respiratory status during a
Acquired central 0 4 6-month trial of enzyme replacement therapy. She was
hypoventilation admitted to hospital for respiratory failure and hypoten-
syndrome
Spinal injury 0 1 sion. After two failed extubations, elective withdrawal of
Other central causes 1 1
Subtotal 3 13
TABLE 4— Patient Outcomes and Disposition for the 48
Neuromuscular Spinal muscular atrophy 3 1
Children Followed Between 1991 to 2013
(n ¼ 19, 37.2%) type 1
Congenital myopathy 2 2
Noninvasive
Other myopathy 3 0
ventilation IMV
Congenital dytrophy 2 2 N ¼ 25 N ¼ 26 P-value
Musculoskeletal 4 0
Subtotal 14 5 Currently followed, n(%) 8 (32%) 21 (81%) 0.0002
Respiratory Chronic lung disease 3 3 Improved (no longer requiring 7 (28%) 3 (12%) 0.2
(n ¼ 16, 31.4%) Airway malacia 2 0 ventilation)
Diaphragm paresis 1 0 Mortality 8 (32%) 2 (8%) 0.04
Pulmonary atresia 1 0 Age at time of death, median 1.1 (0.9–1.4) 3.0 0.4
OSA 1 0 (IQR) years (1.0–5.0)
Pulmonary hypoplasia 0 2 Duration of ventilation at time 0.4 (0.2–0.9) 2.9 0.1
Airway stenosis 0 1 of death, median (IQR) (0.8–4.9)
Other 0 2 years
Subtotal 8 8 Treatment failure 2 (8%) 0 0.2

Pediatric Pulmonology
 Noninvasive Ventilation in Infants 193
TABLE 5— Descriptive Characteristics of the Patients That Died While Prescribed NIV

Palliative Autopsy Monitoring Duration of

Patient Underlying disease (Yes/No) (Yes/No) Cause of terminal event during NIV NIV (years)
IMV #1 Congenital myopathy No No Pneumonia leading to ARDS Oximetry 4.87
and sepsis
IMV #2 Hypoplastic left heart and Yes No No death note Oximetry 0.84
chronic respiratory failure
NiPPV #1 SMA type I Yes No At home; unknown Oximetry 0.99
NiPPV #2 SMA type I Yes No Unknown Oximetry 0.20
NiPPV #3 Congenital myopathy No No At home; unknown Oximetry 0.51
NiPPV #4 Arthrogryposis No No Cardiorespiratory Oximetry 0.25
failure—unknown—found
unresponsive
NiPPV #5 SMA type I Yes No Cardiorespiratory failure Oximetry 0.23
NiPPV #6 Thoracic insufficiency Unkown No Unknown Oximetry 2.51
NiPPV #7 Pulmonary atresia Unknown No Unknown Oximetry 0.44
NiPPV #8 Pompe’s disease Yes No Elective withdrawal of care Oximetry 0.29

care was completed with a one-way extubation. The four
remaining deaths were in patients prescribed NiPPV who
were not receiving palliative care. Patient NiPPV #3 had
congenital myopathy and was prescribed NiPPV for
hypoventilation. Despite treatment with NiPPV, this
patient continued experiencing multiple episodes of
aspiration pneumonia. Within 6 months of NiPPV
initiation, death occurred at home. The reason for death
is unknown. Patient NiPPV #4 had a diagnosis of
arthrogryposis, scoliosis, pulmonary hypertension, and
GERD. She was prescribed NiPPV for nocturnal use
because of hypoventilation. She was found unresponsive
during the day at home and received cardiopulmonary
resuscitation at home for 25 min prior to the arrival of the
Emergency Medical Services. Brain death was confirmed
on day 3 of admission and withdrawal of care occurred the
next day. The circumstances surrounding the deaths of
patient NiPPV # 6 and # 7 are not available.
DISCUSSION
To the best of our knowledge, we are reporting on the
largest cohort of children initiated on NiPPV at less than
1 year of age. Similar to the Markstrom and Bach studies,
we found that NiPPV was effective; there was a
significant improvement in PaCO2 levels in all patients
after the initiation of NiPPV.21,22 No deaths were
attributable to equipment failure in our cohort which is
another significant finding.
Our study provides insight into clinical practice
patterns over the past two decades. There has been a
significant increase in the prescription of NiPPV for
children less than 1 year of age at our center. Twenty-four
of the 25 NiPPV initiations in the last 23 years were within
the last 10 years. This is consistent with the emerging
literature for diagnoses, such as congenital central
hypoventilation syndrome, that these children can be
safely managed with noninvasive ventilation from
infancy.23,24 This is, in part, due to the significant
improvements in the availability of commercially
available interfaces for young children, as well as an
emerging option to have custom-made interfaces.25
Furthermore, there have been significant advances in
the ventilators themselves. There were more IMV
ventilation initiations over the 2012–2013 period as
compared to any other time periods. Unfortunately, as a
result of the relatively small patient numbers in our
cohort, in conjunction with this finding occurring in the
last 2 years of the study period, we are unable to comment
on whether this is an isolated finding or an emerging trend.
The main documented complication in the noninva-
sively ventilated group was midface hypoplasia (n ¼ 3 of
25) and dermatographism (n ¼ 3 of 25), both of which
were seen in a small minority of patients. Midface
hyopoplasia is an important consideration for pediatri-
cians initiating NiPPV because by the age of 4 years, only
60% of the adult facial structures have developed.26–28
More children were able to be weaned off ventilation in
the NiPPV cohort as compared to the IMV comparator
group. Therefore, NiPPV may be more likely to be
prescribed to children with a chance of clinical improve-
ment, an unclear prognosis or as part of a palliative care
approach where symptomatic relief is warranted, such as
SMA type I. On the other hand, IMV was predominantly
prescribed to children with mostly central nervous system
(CNS) diagnoses and significant neurodisability. These
patients were perceived as having less chance of disease
resolution.
There were more deaths in the NiPPV cohort. At first
glance, this would suggest that NiPPV itself may be
contributing to a higher mortality rate than children
initiated on invasive ventilation via tracheostomy.
However, four of the eight deaths occurred in children
in whom a palliative care approach was taken at the time
Pediatric Pulmonology
194 Kherani et al.
of the initiation of NiPPV and none of the known deaths
were because of equipment failure. Most of the deaths
appeared to be a result of the underlying disease leading to
progressive respiratory failure.
The significant challenges with adherence to therapy
for pediatric NiPPV are well established in the litera-
ture29–31 Only one child in our cohort was non-adherent
with therapy as per parental report. This number may in
fact have been higher but objective assessment of
adherence by downloads from the ventilator itself was
not formally available in the medical records for the
duration of our retrospective review. Therefore, these data
could not be included. Although only one patient was
completely non-compliant with therapy, we suspect that
the number of children with suboptimal adherence to
therapy in our cohort would have been much higher.
The differences in the caregiver requirements for a
child at home on long-term NiPPV versus IMV, as well as
the associated risks, are other important considerations
when deciding on the mode of ventilation for a child.
Children who are invasively ventilated via a tracheosto-
my require “24/7 eyes on care” of the tracheostomy to
ensure a stable, patent airway. There are also associated
risks of weakened cough, bleeding, and increased
secretions related to a tracheostomy. Additionally, these
children have the social stigma associated with a
tracheostomy. On the other hand, the use of NiPPV for
more than 12 hr is associated with increased risk of skin
breakdown from the interface. NiPPV needs to be
discontinued during oral feeds and occasionally during
enterostomy feeds to minimize the risk of gastroesopha-
geal reflux and aspiration. Surprisingly in our cohort,
albeit small, very few of these potential complications
were observed.
Our study has several limitations. Being a single-center
study, our results may not be generalizable to other
centers. The Canadian centers have different provincial
resources and supports for caregivers, varying oximeter
prescribing practices, differing expertise with respect to
other modalities of ventilation, such as diaphragmatic
pacing, different training programs for caregivers, and not
all institutions have a pediatric sleep laboratory. All of
these could potentially affect clinical outcomes. At
present, a national database of Canadian children
requiring long-term ventilation does not exist. Given
the relatively small size of the pediatric population
receiving long-term mechanical ventilation at home, a
national registry is needed to review clinical outcomes
across the country, standardize management, and advance
the care of this medically fragile population. Secondly,
given the retrospective study design, while the major
issues of safety and efficacy of the treatments were
addressed, there was limited quantity of data available
with regards to minor complications to the ventilatory
treatments. Additionally, similar to several previous
Pediatric Pulmonology
studies, adherence data for NiPPV are lacking in our
study. Our study did not report on the healthcare
utilization in this cohort that was managed on NiPPV as
compared to IMV. Future directions will include a
provincial review of the healthcare utilization of
invasively and noninvasively ventilated children using
provincial healthcare administration databases to ensure
acute care and homecare expenditures are not significant-
ly greater for children managed noninvasively. Lastly, the
neurocognitive outcomes of the two cohorts of children
were not formally assessed. This would be an important
outcome measure for future, prospective, studies of long-
term use of NiPPV and IMV in infants.
CONCLUSION
NiPPV initiated in children less than 1 year of age is
increasingly being used, appears to be an effective
treatment, and many children seem to be able to be
eventually weaned off ventilation. Although, the overall
mortality rate was higher in the NiPPV cohort as
compared to children maintained on IMV, this appeared
to be related to the underlying medical diagnosis as
several children were receiving palliative care. None of
the known deaths were due to equipment dysfunction.
Based on the results of this long-term study, NiPPV use in
infants appears to be a viable long-term ventilation
strategy. Future directions include the development of a
national registry for ventilated children, and the assess-
ment of the neurocognitive outcomes and relative
healthcare costs of children receiving invasive versus
non-invasive long-term ventilation at home.
REFERENCES
1. Amin R,Sayal P, Syed F, Chaves A, Moraes TJ, Maclusky I:
Pediatric long-term home mechanical ventilation: twenty years of
follow-up from one Canadian center. Pediatr Pulmonol 2014;49:
816–824.
2. McDougall CM, Adderley RJ, Wensley DF, Seear MD. Long-term
ventilation in children: longitudinal trends and outcomes. Arch
Dis Child 2013;98:660–665.
3. Jardine E, O’Toole M, Paton JY, Wallis C. Current status of long
term ventilation of children in the United Kingdom: questionnaire
survey. BMJ 1999;318:295–299.
4. Jardine E, Wallis C. Core guidelines for the discharge home of the
child on long-term assisted ventilation in the United Kingdom. UK
Working Party on Paediatric Long Term Ventilation. Thorax
1998;53:762–767.
5. Wallis C, Paton JY, Beaton S, Jardine E. Children on long-term
ventilatory support: 10 years of progress. Arch Dis Child
2011;96:998–1002.
6. Graham RJ, Fleegler EW, Robinson WM. Chronic ventilator need
in the community: a 2005 pediatric census of Massachusetts.
Pediatrics 2007;119:e1280–e1287.
7. Paulides FM, Plotz FB, Verweij-van den Oudenrijn LP, van Gestel
JP, Kampelmacher MJ. Thirty years of home mechanical
ventilation in children: escalating need for pediatric intensive
care beds. Intensive Care Med 2012;38:847–852.

8. Robinson RO. Ventilator dependency in the United Kingdom.
Arch Dis Child 1990;65:1235–1236.
9. Gowans M, Keenan HT, Bratton SL. The population prevalence of
children receiving invasive home ventilation in Utah. Pediatr
Pulmonol 2007;42:231–236.
10. Fauroux B, Boffa C, Desguerre I, Estournet B, Trang H. Long-term
noninvasive mechanical ventilation for children at home: a
national survey. Pediatr Pulmonol 2003;35:119–125.
11. Fauroux B, Sardet A, Foret D. Home treatment for chronic
respiratory failure in children: a prospective study. Eur Respir J
1995;8:2062–2066.
12. Racca F, Bonati M, Del Sorbo L, Berta G, Sequi M, Capello EC,
Wolfler A, Salvo I, Bignamini E, Ottonello G. Invasive and non-
invasive long-term mechanical ventilation in Italian children.
Minerva Anestesiol 2011;77:892–901.
13. Ottonello G, Ferrari I, Pirroddi IM, Diana MC, Villa G, Nahum L,
Tuo P, Moscatelli A, Silvestri G. Home mechanical ventilation in
children: retrospective survey of a pediatric population. Pediatr Int
2007;49:801–805.
14. Kamm M, Burger R, Rimensberger P, Knoblauch A, Hammer J.
Survey of children supported by long-term mechanical ventilation
in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly 2001;131:261–266.
15. Edwards EA, Hsiao K, Nixon GM. Paediatric home ventilatory
support: the Auckland experience. J Paediatr Child Health 2005;
41:652–658.
16. Tibballs J, Henning R, Robertson CF, Massie J, Hochmann M,
Carter B, Osborne A, Stephens RA, Scoble M, Jones SE, et al.
A home respiratory support programme for children by parents
and layperson carers. J Paediatr Child Health 2010;46:57–62.
17. Bertrand P, Fehlmann E, Lizama M, Holmgren N, Silva M,
Sanchez I. [Home ventilatory assistance in Chilean children: 12
years’ experience]. Arch Bronconeumol 2006;42:165–170.
18. Oktem S, Ersu R, Uyan ZS, Cakir E, Karakoc F, Karadag B, Kiyan
G, Dagli E. Home ventilation for children with chronic respiratory
failure in Istanbul. Respiration 2008;76:76–81.
19. van der Lee JH, Mokkink LB, Grootenhuis MA, Heymans HS,
Offringa M. Definitions and measurement of chronic health
conditions in childhood: a systematic review. JAMA. JAMA
2007;297:2741–2751.
20. Cohen E, Kuo DZ, Agrawal R, Berry JG, Bhagat SK, Simon TD,
Srivastava R. Children with medical complexity: an emerging
population for clinical and research initiatives. Pediatrics 2011;
127:529–538.
Noninvasive Ventilation in Infants 195
21. Markstrom A, Sundell K, Stenberg N, Katz-Salamon M. Long-
term non-invasive positive airway pressure ventilation in infants.
Acta Paediatr 2008;97:1658–1662.
22. Bach JR, Niranjan V, Weaver B. Spinal muscular atrophy type 1: a
noninvasive respiratory management approach. Chest 2000;117:
1100–1105.
23. Tibballs J, Henning RD. Noninvasive ventilatory strategies in the
management of a newborn infant and three children with
congenital central hypoventilation syndrome. Pediatr Pulmonol
2003;36:544–548.
24. Kerbl R, Litscher H, Grubbauer HM, Reiterer F, Zobel G, Trop M,
Urlesberger B, Eber E, Kurz R. Congenital central hypoventilation
syndrome (Ondine’s curse syndrome) in two siblings: delayed
diagnosis and successful noninvasive treatment. Eur J Pediatr
1996;155:977–980.
25. Ramirez A, Delord V, Khirani S, Leroux K, Cassier S, Kadlub N,
Aubertin G, Picard A, Fauroux B. Interfaces for long-term
noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in children. Intensive
Care Med 2012;38:655–662.
26. Villa MP, Pagani J, Ambrosio R, Ronchetti R, Bernkopf E. Mid-
face hypoplasia after long-term nasal ventilation. Am J Respir Crit
Care Med 2002;166:1142–1143.
27. Li KK, Riley RW, Guilleminault C. An unreported risk in the use
of home nasal continuous positive airway pressure and home nasal
ventilation in children: mid-face hypoplasia. Chest 2000;117:
916–918.
28. Villa MP, Dotta A, Castello D, Piro S, Pagani J, Palamides S,
Ronchetti R. Bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilation
in an infant with central hypoventilation syndrome. Pediatr
Pulmonol 1997;24:66–69.
29. DiFeo N, Meltzer LJ, Beck SE, Karamessinis LR, Cornaglia
MA, Traylor J, Samuel J, Gallagher PR, Radcliffe J, Beris H,
et al. Predictors of positive airway pressure therapy adherence
in children: a prospective study. J Clin Sleep Med 2012;8:
279–286.
30. Marcus CL, Beck SE, Traylor J, Cornaglia MA, Meltzer LJ, DiFeo
N, Karamessinis LR, Samuel J, Falvo J, DiMaria M, et al.
Randomized, double-blind clinical trial of two different modes of
positive airway pressure therapy on adherence and efficacy in
children. J Clin Sleep Med 2012;8:37–42.
31. Nixon GM, Mihai R, Verginis N, Davey MJ. Patterns of continuous
positive airway pressure adherence during the first 3 months of
treatment in children. J Pediatr 2011;159:802–807.
Pediatric Pulmonology