We agree with the conclusions of Dr Esquinas and colleagues. There is a substantial variability in reliability of ventilator software, in modes of data reporting as detailed in our study,1 and also in ventilator pressurization capabilities.2 For these reasons, clinicians must become familiar with the performance and the limitations of the devices they choose among those that are commercially available for home noninvasive ventilation (NIV). This is, however, a problem, since independent testing and validation of ventilator software or new ventilator modes are either not always available or not necessarily conclusive. For instance, ventilators proposing volume-targeted bilevel pressure support have been commercialized for several years, yet the evidence concerning the clinical relevance of this mode remains inconclusive.3-5 Although volume targeting may improve nocturnal transcutaneous Pco2 by a few mm Hg, it may be at the expense of a decrease in quality of sleep; furthermore, the short- or long-term clinical benefit in adults is not established.3 In sleep-disordered breathing, the option of auto-CPAP is present in most or all CPAP devices on the market, without having shown its superiority in terms of efficiency or compliance.6 Another example concerns interfaces for NIV. Borel et al7 showed that the type of mask chosen by the clinician has a direct and significant impact on volume delivered to the patient as well as on the effective pressurization by home ventilators.