Well, I had a frustrating day today. I went for my scan and they overruled my consultant and refused to do it with contrast. She just looked and my card And said we don’t do that, you obviously had a stroke! Well it wasn’t obvious to me or my consultant and I am still unconvinced so just missed out on the chance of lesions being picked up. Back to the GP and to out new symptoms on record and see if I can get referred direct to neuro. Or alternatively if they are so sure it was a stroke and I’m having another flare they can investigate ‘the stroke’ I’m having now! Grrr
Hi,
If it’s any help, you don’t need contrast to see lesions. It is only useful for distinguishing between active and historic lesions. But if the question is the more fundamental one of whether there are lesions at all, active AND inactive ones can be seen without contrast - you just can’t tell which is which.
I didn’t have contrast for early scans - lesions still showed up fine. It was only after they’d seen them they wanted to scan again with contrast, to find out how many were active - which gives an indication of how active the disease is at that moment in time.
Contrast won’t reveal any lesions that couldn’t be seen otherwise.
Tina
Thanks Anitra, that’s encouraging!
I’ve had 2 MRIs during the diagnosis process and contrast was never mentioned. I don’t know what the first one showed (the consultant didn’t explain it clearly), but the second one showed my current neuro the information he needed to be pretty sure I have MS (since confirmed by further tests).
I think I’ve been confusing but the only reason I had any hope at all this scan would show anything was because it had contrast as the consultant asked not for an MRI but a CT with contrast, but he said that would show up either MS or a TIA which were the options he was looking at. But the radiologist assumed TIA and so skipped the contrast. CTs generally are not good at picking up lesions early on, but there is evidence that with contrast at least lesions can be visible so I had some Hope it would show. Does that make more sense? I’m just very frustrated because the GP doesn’t seem to care regardless about symptoms and effect of them like my bladder and driving and walking and work. sigh
Ah, that makes a little more sense, although why they went for a CT rather than an MRI I’m not sure - unless there’s a reason you can’t have an MRI? Neither of my consultants mentioned a CT scan, both went straight for MRI.
The radiologist deserves a telling off: if the referring consultant requests a CT with contrast, that is what she should do - no matter what her opinions.
If your GP doesn’t care, can you see a different doctor at the practice? Or find another GP who does care about the effects your symptoms are having on your life. There are sympathetic, caring GPs out there - I’ve got one.
(((Hugs)))
Thanks for hearing me Mitzi. The consultant is a fatigue consultant not a neuro so it’s all messy. He told me he believed the scan would show/rule out TIA or MS. I was concerned as I figured at this point it was unlikely to show but lesions can show on contrast CTs if active particularly. But then when it didn’t happen I felt discouraged. And meanwhile symptoms seem to be still currently developing with nobody willing to listen. I am thinking about changing GP or at least going for a private GP consult who might refer me on of at least hear. Thanks again for hearing Mitzi, I was starting to feel like nobody could.
I would try changing GP before going private, but that’s just my view and depends on what you can find out about the other GP practices in your area. Ask friends and neighbours whethrr they would recommend their doctor to help you find a better one than you currently have.
And whatever you do now about seeing a GP, keep a record of what your symptoms are, when each one started and how/when they vary. This will help when you finally get to see a specialist as you will be able to give a much better history than if you are trying to remember what happened when.
Good luck.