Pleistocene terrace deposition related to tectonically controlled surface uplift: an example of the Kyrenia Range lineament in the northern part of Cyprus

AbstractIn this study, we consider how surface uplift of a narrow mountain range has interacted with glacial-related sea-level cyclicity and climatic change to produce a series of marine and non-marine terrace systems. The terrace deposits of the Kyrenia Range record rapid surface uplift of a long-lived tectonic lineament during the early Pleistocene, followed by continued surface uplift at a reduced rate during mid-late Pleistocene. Six terrace depositional systems are distinguished and correlated along the northern and southern flanks of the range, termed K0 to K5. The oldest and highest (K0 terrace system) is present only within the central part of the range. The K2–K5 terrace systems formed later, at sequentially lower levels away from the range. The earliest stage of surface uplift (K0 terrace system) comprises lacustrine carbonates interbedded with mass-flow facies (early Pleistocene?). The subsequent terrace system (K1) is made up of colluvial conglomerate and aeolian dune facies on both flanks of the range. The later terrace systems (K2 to K5) each begin with a basal marine deposit, interpreted as a marine transgression. Deltaic conglomerates prograded during inferred global interglacial stages. Overlying aeolian dune facies represent marine regressions, probably related to global glacial stages. Each terrace depositional system was uplifted and preserved, followed by subsequent deposits at progressively lower topographic levels. Climatic variation during interglacial–glacial cycles and autocyclic processes also exerted an influence on deposition, particularly on short-period fluvial and aeolian deposition

Hemodialysis Catheters in Infants: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study

PURPOSE Evaluate technical aspects and outcomes of insertion/maintenance of hemodialysis (HD) central venous catheter (CVC) during infancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Single-center retrospective study of 29 infants who underwent 49 HD-CVC insertions between 2002 and 2016. Demographics, procedural, and post-procedural details, interventional radiology (IR) maintenance procedures, technical modifications, complications, and outcomes were evaluated. Technical adjustments during HD-CVC placement to adapt catheter length to patient size were labeled "modifications." CVCs requiring return visit to IR were called IR-maintenance procedures. Mean age and weight at HD-CVC insertion were 117 days and 4.9 kg. RESULTS Of the 29 patients, 13 (45%) required renal-replacement-therapy (RRT) as neonates, 10 (34%) commenced RRT with peritoneal dialysis (PD), and 19 (66%) with HD. Fifteen nontunneled and 34 tunneled HD-CVCs were inserted while patients were ≤1 year. Technical modifications were required placing 25/49 (51%) HD-CVCs: 5/15 (33%) nontunneled and 20/34 (59%) tunneled catheters (P = .08). Patients underwent ≤6 dialysis-cycles/patient during infancy (mean 2.3), and a mean of 4.1 and 49 HD-sessions/catheter for nontunneled and tunneled HD-CVCs, respectively. Mean primary and secondary device service, and total access site intervals for tunneled HD-CVCs were 75, 115, and 201 days, respectively. A total of 26 of 49 (53%) patients required IR-maintenance procedures. Nontunneled lines had greater catheter-related bloodstream infections per 1,000 catheter-days than tunneled HD-CVCs (9.25 vs. 0.85/1,000 catheter days; P = .02). Nineteen patients (65%) survived over 1 year. At final evaluation (December 2017): 8/19 survived transplantation, 5/19 remained on RRT, 2/19 completely recovered, 1/19 lost to follow-up, and 3 died at 1.3, 2, and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS Placement/maintenance of HD-CVCs in infants pose specific challenges, requiring insertion modifications, and IR-maintenance procedures to maintain function

Canadian Association of Paediatric Nephrologists COVID-19 Rapid Response: Home and In-Center Dialysis Guidance

Purpose of the program: This article provides guidance on optimizing the management of pediatric patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who will be or are being treated with any form of home or in-center dialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goals are to provide the best possible care for pediatric patients with ESKD during the pandemic and ensure the health care team’s safety. Sources of information: The core of these rapid guidelines is derived from the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) consensus recommendations for adult patients recently published in the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease (CJKHD). We also consulted specific documents from other national and international agencies focused on pediatric kidney health. Additional information was obtained by formal review of the published academic literature relevant to pediatric home or in-center hemodialysis. Methods: The Leadership of the Canadian Association of Paediatric Nephrologists (CAPN), which is affiliated with the CSN, solicited a team of clinicians and researchers with expertise in pediatric home and in-center dialysis. The goal was to adapt the guidelines recently adopted for Canadian adult dialysis patients for pediatric-specific settings. These included specific COVID-19-related themes that apply to dialysis in a Canadian environment, as determined by a group of senior renal leaders. Expert clinicians and nurses with deep expertise in pediatric home and in-center dialysis reviewed the revised pediatric guidelines. Key findings: We identified 7 broad areas of home dialysis practice management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, (2) home dialysis training, (3) home dialysis management, (4) personal protective equipment, (5) product delivery, (6) minimizing direct health care providers and patient contact, and (7) caregivers support in the community. In addition, we identified 8 broad areas of in-center dialysis practice management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) identification of patients with COVID-19, (2) hemodialysis of patients with confirmed COVID-19, (3) hemodialysis of patients not yet known to have COVID-19, (4) management of visitors to the dialysis unit, (5) handling COVID-19 testing of patients and staff, (6) safe practices during resuscitation procedures in a pandemic, (7) routine hemodialysis care, and (8) hemodialysis care under fixed dialysis resources. We make specific suggestions and recommendations for each of these areas. Limitations: At the time when we started this work, we knew that evidence on the topic of pediatric dialysis and COVID-19 would be severely limited, and our resources were also limited. We did not, therefore, do formal systematic review or meta-analysis. We did not evaluate our specific suggestions in the clinical environment. Thus, this article’s advice and recommendations are primarily expert opinions and subject to the biases associated with this level of evidence. To expedite the publication of this work, we created a parallel review process that may not be as robust as standard arms’ length peer-review processes. Implications: We intend these recommendations to help provide the best care possible for pediatric patients prescribed in-center or home dialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time of altered priorities and reduced resources