Venogram: Too Risky?

[RightSide]

On April 3, I had an operation to create a fistula.

As I posted once before, it's not developing well.  There's only thrill & bruit for a few inches of its length.  Beyond that point there's nothing, and my doctor suspects some blood vessels branching off there.

The docs at Massachusetts General Hospital want to do a "bilateral venogram."  That involves injecting a dye into the veins and then X-raying, to see the entire layout of the blood vessels.  BUT they told me that there is some risk that the dye could completely wipe out my remaining kidney function.  That scared me.

Right now, I have a GFR of about 12.  I'm still urinating, so I don't retain much fluid.  If the dye wiped my GFR down to absolute zero, and I could no longer pee, that would make my ESRD much harder to manage.

Is anyone familiar with this venography test?  How risky is it, really?  And is it necessary to get the fistula working?

[jbeany]

I don't know about the venogram.  I do know that every surgery and procedure I have had has taken a bit more of my remaining kidney function.  I don't know if it's the anesthetic or the dye, but my ability to urinate lessens with every dose.

The only response I've ever gotten to my concerns about it is - "But you are already on dialysis.  What difference does it make?"   

Did they offer you any other options to make the fistula work?  As frustrating as losing the kidney function is, having a working fistula, and not losing the one you have still needs to take precedence.  There are only so many places to put them, so if it can be repaired and made usable, that should be the priority.

[RightSide]

I just posted an update on my fistula in a new topic:
"Fistula problem. Choosing among solutions."