Hello all, this is my first post. I am UK based and have been T2 diabetic for 12 yrs with poor control of mt glucose..alot worse recently. My blood pressure was high and I took 50mg of losartin, which worked, but most recently wasn't doing as good a job as it used to. I cant take statins, but my tryclicerides was up fro. 7.5 to 14. It was never explained to me, but it suddenly can to light that I had ckd 3, GFR 51. Since this discovery, I have lost 20 pound, my recent HBA1C is avg 55, blood pressure is avg 120/75 and I am swimming/walking twice a week without any problems. BUT they are very insistent that I must have coronary problems and are saying I MUST have a CT with contrast. I maybe rather stupid...but I am worried about the contrast and I just don't want this test...any advice appreciated, thank you
CT scan booked - worried: Hello all, this is... - Kidney Disease
CT scan booked - worried
Why are they saying you have coronary issues? Did they run other tests to show that like stress tests? And you are correct in that contrast will damage the kidneys further.
They say my triglycerides are so high, that it essential to check...because I'm high risk of a heart attack or stroke
My triglycerides used to be terrible and yet no one ever said to do an angiogram with contrast. They ran stress tests, and I blew them out of the park. I have always been very active and athletic, despite my size. The doctor feels that it is genetic as all my siblings and father had/have high trigs. BTW, when I went on my renal, plant based diet, they went drastically down and now are almost normal. Just saying.
Although not a plant based diet, I do and always have eaten lots of fruit and veg and I'm limiting red meat, eggs etc now...so hoping it will have improved. My husband eats pretty much identical to me, yet his are well within normal parameters...so yes, I agree is genetics. I've had no stress tests..nothing at all...its taken two years to speak to a cardio because my gp thought they could do injection as I can't tolerate statins..but then this came at me ..almost by surprise
Yes, luck of the draw, so to speak. My one brother used to eat junk food, fast food and guzzle soda. Stayed skinny his whole life, no health issues. At 81, he saw an uptick in cholesterol. I too cannot tolerate statins and my reading says for the most part they are not good for late-stage CKD. I was on them for about a year or so and I noticed this fall I was feeling really bad. Thought it was the CKD rearing its ugly head. Titrated myself off the statin and now I am feeling like my old self again. I am not sure if it will affect my labs, but truthfully, I do not care.
Yeah, I guess so..I'm 54 and my grandparents had heart desease. I'm just rather concerned that I've done all this, just to have the contrast make it worse than when I started
I'm curious as to what they are CT scanning? What organ? I have high cholesterol and triglycerides. I've had scans of arteries, veins, legs, neck and stomach. Also stress test, nuclear and echocardiogram and they never used contrast.
It would be on my heart, I've had no other tests and I'm a bit of a big baby, I'm terrified of tests in general 
Hello! My hubby is a T2D. He has been on triglyceride/cholesterol reducing meds for many years. When an order was placed for a CT scan on his heart, we asked the cardiologist and the radiologist to save as much kidney function as possible. They agreed to reduce the amount of contrast. During the procedure, a heart blockage was found and a stent was placed at that time - so one stop took care of everything. Because he had been on meds all along, it was only one stent, not several. (Also, not all blockages need stents, some can be resolved by medications if there's enough time.) My hubby's renal numbers after the procedure stayed the same. I think it's a good idea for all diabetics to keep a very close eye on heart health, particularly if labs or doctors indicate issues. (I suspect UK doctors generally don't ask for tests unless justified.) My hubby's grandfather died young (45) from a sudden heart attack. It's likely he had diabetes, since many on that side of his family had it. Glucose is the problem that leads to trouble, so I'm so glad you've taken control of your situation! If you keep those A1cs in the normal range, you will add many quality years to your life. Kudos!
Thank you so much. This is a scan though, so whilst I'm thankful I'd not the more invasive procedure, like your husband had, it still involves contrast and that's what's worrying me..maybe I'm just being a big baby, but I cannot understand if I don't have clinical symptoms, the contrast is needed.
I think they want to "prevent" an out-of-the blue heart attack, an arrhythmia, etc. Sometimes there are no physical or observable symptoms, it just happens. Europe does far more in prevention than most other nations including the US. Your lifespans are very long. So you're lucky that way.
If it's any reassurance, my mum (CKD3) has had annual CT scans for ~5y and her kidney function appears to be largely unaffected, at least longer-term. Note also below link which states:
"..prolonged exposure is thought to increase the risk of developing kidney damage. The risk is very low, about 1% unless the patient’s eGFR is < 30, then the risk goes up slightly. Even when kidney damage occurs, it is almost always temporary and will resolve without treatment" radiology.ucsf.edu/blog/abd...
Thank you, that's interesting 😊
I would REFUSE the contrast . That is old fashion they can do the test without it . The contrast is very hard on kidneys and would make more damage. You must assertive for yourself .
So it can be done without contrast? They told me no...
Read up on it , but I have read most of the time yes it can be fome without contrast .
Or you could refuse the whole test altogether. Just because doctor wants you to do a test . It is your body you do not have to do it . Just refuse the test as is your right .
I have hyperthyroidism so I cannot have contrast and every time it's mentioned I refuse and they do the scan without it.
Hello and let me say I think you are doing everything right. Just want to let you know that I recently declined a MRA with contrast because of my CKD stage 3. There are other tests that they can do without the risk of the contrast. Please talk to all involved and do your own research about the contrast. Be as informed as you can. My best to you!
Thank you, I do agree that as a first test its unnecessary to put my kidney function at risk
I had an MRI with contrast, I had a possible kidney tumour and the pics they got on the previous scan without contrast showed something, but they wanted better pics.
They told me that adding contrast made it possible for the radiologist to detect even the smallest tumour and would provide information about the precise location of the tumour.
That's what it did, found my cancer early.
The contrast did not seem to have any effect on my kidney function. My labs were about the same the next month (I have them monthly).
I was ok with it, clearly, everyone is against it, but it worked out fine in my situation, I have had cancer before, and I really did not want this one to get out of control.
Thank you, its a definite different perspective and I hope you are well into your recovery 😊🙏
When I was stage 4 and had to have scans, the imaging center here in the US used a creatinine of 2.0 or higher as the cutoff for using contrast. If they felt they really needed to use it, they would contact my Neph and ask and a few times, he said ok. In the recent two years, I have tetered between stages 4 and 3b. I take a statin every night because my cholesterol was high at 250 and trigs at 200. The statin has brought my cholesterol down to 150 and trigs down under 100. Your BP looks good. If they indeed end up using contrast for your heart scan, hopefully they scan a large enough section to get your kidneys in the picture also. That may shed some light on what is going on there.
Thank you, perhaps i could make that suggestion
Only you can weigh the pros and cons of getting the CT with contrast. Curious ... have you had an abnormal EKG?
You have choices: 1) you can decline the test, 2) you can decline the contrast and get the test, 3) you can get the test with the contrast as ordered, or 4) you can postpone the test while reducing your triglycerides with a plant based diet and revisit the issue in 4-6 months. Your body, your choice. It's really a "do the benefits outweigh the risks" question, and it's an individual decision. Best wishes!
You mention an EKG...my hubby's EKG was normal, the CT scan detected his blockage. So different tests do different things. Diabetes also narrows and stiffens the vessels - there's no turning back the clock on that. Whereas one can live without kidneys, but not a heart. It's a struggle, for sure. Best to keep a close eye on the situation.
Thank you, I know its not a decision I'm making lightly.
No, I've had no other tests at all
Let us know what you decide and how it goes. Good luck
Thank you so much
Hi there. I am also based in the uk, and was interested in your story. I also have a GFR of 51 on last testing.
Did they explain the reasoning why they think you need this test, have you had other more non invasive tests. Is it your renal consultant that has recommended this. I would certainly be asking for an explanation of the reasons why they think it is necessary.
Good luck
Ann
Hi AnnNo, no other tests, the reasoning is only based on my cholesterol numbers and that my grandparents had heart issues. In normal circumstances, I wouldn't see a problem, but because of the ckd I am very anxious about the damage it could do. I have left a message for the consultant today, explaining I will have the test, but no contrast...so I will see how they respond...no point in working heard to increase my kidney function, to reverse it again. If they do a scan and then if anything suggests a problem up....I can then decide I guess.
sounds like a good plan. Good luck. I know how worried we get about doing further damage to our kidneys. You are so right to question this. At the end of day it’s getting the balance right
the contrast on the ct scan is harmful to your kidney, ever at a lower dose. have someon do an Ultra sound on your kidney instead. a urologist could do that!
Thank you, they did an ultrasound on my kidneys...which all looks good. The ct is on my heart...don't know if a ultrasound can be done or if its useful on the heart
YES! An echocardiogram/Ultrasound can be done for heart. I had mine recently and had normal result, valves ok, cardiac output good for 66 y.o. female. A stress test also ordered. I'm not diabetic, but the damage to blood vessels goes along with diabetes and CKD. May not hurt to get 2nd opinion, ask for test without contrast or if "other" contrast, less damaging available, IDK?
My cardio ordered stress test and 81mg baby aspirin. Have postponed till March.
Hope you find best action for YOU🙏!
Thank you. I spoke to cardiologist and they suggested a stress test, but a agreed to review later in the year pending outcomes of lifestyle changes. Atm I have manage to get GFR back to 62, from 51. That puts me back to stage 2 I think, so fingers crossed I can keep that going 🙏
I live in Canada and my understanding is that contrast CT scan mean less radiation exposure. If you have concern I would ask the radiologist about what type of dye they use. I was told that the one used for the CT scan was not an issue.
I also had a nuclear scan done and there are quite significantly more radiation involved. The dye itself can be problematic if left too long in the body so they would give me a diuretitic should the kidney function was a bit lower than expected. They ended doing it.
I spoke to the consultant and we agreed to defer the scan pending lifestyle changes, because it can impact kidneys and I'm actively trying to increase my GFR.
I'm getting a mri lower and upper spine with/without contrast my will this affect my kidneys of 71?
I’m new here and worried
Would appreciate advice
Still here.
