A simple test of muscle coactivation estimation using electromyography

In numerous motor tasks, muscles around a joint act coactively to generate opposite torques. A variety of indexes based on electromyography signals have been presented in the literature to quantify muscle coactivation. However, it is not known how to estimate it reliably using such indexes. The goal of this study was to test the reliability of the estimation of muscle coactivation using electromyography. Isometric coactivation was obtained at various muscle activation levels. For this task, any coactivation measurement/index should present the maximal score (100% of coactivation). Two coactivation indexes were applied. In the first, the antagonistic muscle activity (the lower electromyographic signal between two muscles that generate opposite joint torques) is divided by the mean between the agonistic and antagonistic muscle activations. In the second, the ratio between antagonistic and agonistic muscle activation is calculated. Moreover, we computed these indexes considering different electromyographic amplitude normalization procedures. It was found that the first algorithm, with all signals normalized by their respective maximal voluntary coactivation, generates the index closest to the true value (100%), reaching 92 ± 6%. In contrast, the coactivation index value was 82 ± 12% when the second algorithm was applied and the electromyographic signal was not normalized (P < 0.04). The new finding of the present study is that muscle coactivation is more reliably estimated if the EMG signals are normalized by their respective maximal voluntary contraction obtained during maximal coactivation prior to dividing the antagonistic muscle activity by the mean between the agonistic and antagonistic muscle activations.

Comparison of baseline data between chronic kidney disease patients starting hemodialysis who live near and far from the dialysis center

Introduction: The treatment offered to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients before starting hemodialysis (HD) impacts prognosis. Objective: We seek differences among incident HD patients according to the distance between home and the dialysis center. Methods: We included 179 CKD patients undergoing HD. Patients were stratified in two groups: "living near the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was in cities up to 100 km from the dialysis center) or as "living far from the dialysis center" (patients whose hometown was more than 100 km from the dialysis center). Socioeconomic status, laboratory results, awareness of CKD before starting HD, consultation with nephrologist before the first HD session, and type of vascular access when starting HD were compared between the two groups. Comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were performed using Student's t-test and the Chi-square test, respectively. Results: Ninety (50.3%) patients were classified as "living near the dialysis center" and 89 (49.7%) as "living far from the dialysis center". Patients living near the dialysis center were more likely to know about their condition of CKD than those living far from the dialysis center, respectively 46.6% versus 28.0% (p = 0.015). Although without statistical significance, patients living near the dialysis center had more frequent previous consultation with nephrologists (55.5% versus 42.6%; p = 0.116) and first HD by fistula (30.0% versus 19.1%; p = 0.128) than those living far from the dialysis center. Conclusion: There are potential advantages of CKD awareness, referral to nephrologists and starting HD through fistula among patients living near the dialysis center.