Introduction: Use of inhaled nitric oxide (INO) is a common practice in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in neonatal and pediatric patient populations. The use of INO is associated with a substantial cost and the evidence supporting improved clinical outcome in this population is inconsistent. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that clinical outcomes will demonstrate no statistically significance difference between immediate responders and non-responders in neonatal and pediatric patients who received INO therapy for acute hypoxia. Methods: This is a single-center, non-randomized, retrospective review of non-cardiac, neonatal and pediatric patients who received INO therapy for acute hypoxia between 2004 and 2011. Each eligible patient had pre- and post- arterial (within 1 hour) gases recorded which allowed calculation of PaO2/FiO2 ratios to determine immediate response to INO. ICU outcome was obtained for each eligible patient and predicted mortality (PMort) was calculated through the Vermont Oxford Network (VON) or Virtual PICU (VPS). A total of 142 patients were deemed to be eligible subjects during this time period. Statistical analysis included basic descriptive statistics (mean, median) and group comparison using parametric and non-parametric analysis when appropriate. A p-value of <= 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance between groups. Results: 93 patients demonstrated an immediate, positive response to INO while 50 patients demonstrate no improvement in P/F ratio following initiation on INO. Responders differed significantly from non-responders in pre-P/F ratio (62 vs 80, p=0.004), post-P/F ratio (114 vs 58, p=0.001) and PMort (18 vs 7, p=0.001). We observed no significant difference in ICU mortality between responders and non-responders (27% vs 25%, p=0.815). Conclusions: INO improved P/F ratio following initiation in 65% of the subjects studied. However, INO did not improve ICU outcome even in the responders. Clinical guidelines should be developed to address the administration of INO in this population. Our data suggest that the cost:benefit relationship would not favor the use of INO.