we are grateful for their global positive evaluation and for their critical vision on our article. 2 The reasons for having included 16 tracheostomized patients in our study were: failure of noninvasive ventilation because of insufficient cultural collaboration of patient and family (two cases), need for high insufflation pressure, higher than the closing pressure of the upper esophageal sphincter, by associated frequent asthmatic attacks (one case), and previously performed tracheostomy on intensive care (13 cases).Many Belgian general hospitals consider noninvasive ventilation in respiratory insufficiency, but only as a possible step before intubation. Most of the time, as a patient is unweanable after several days, tracheostomy will be considered as the unique technical possibility for allowing chronic assisted ventilation.Probably much more efforts are to be done to inform our colleagues from the emergency departments and intensive care about the long-term efficiency of noninvasive ventilation support in these patients. We think that tracheostomy can be indicated, but only in some well-defined situations (see our three cases above), and certainly not -or no more -as a first choice. Hence, we entirely share the feelings of Cheng and Bach about the noninvasive techniques as the first step in the approach of the chronic assistance of restrictive patients.