Did the Early Church Fathers Use the Book of Revelation when writing the first Creeds?

First of all, why is the book of Revelation so important to you? or rather preterists and dispensationalists? I mean this nicely. The book of Rev is merely a rehash of most of the eschatological points made either by Jesus directly in the Gospels or by the apostles in the Epistles. The book of Rev doesn't really bring new information. Having said that, I'm not trying to dismiss it. But there is evidence that the book of Rev was being consulted/read by the ECF -- http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/revelation1.html

 Irenaeus clearly had knowledge/access to the book of Rev, and he lived long before 325AD. Since the Council of Nicea included bishops/elders from all over the world, the idea that the Book of Rev may not have played a part in consultation is a stretch. I think there is an implication by some people that there was no unified acceptance of what was scripture until after Constantine brought everyone together. That is clearly not true.

Further, there seems to be an idea among preterists that the Church lacked full access to scriptures and thus only had enough information to make partial interpretations; thus causing so-called "futurism". All of this undermines God. It leaves us with a God who was unable or unwilling to solidify His basic eschatological plan among His followers. It leaves us wondering if even now, do we really have the correct Canon? The Council of Nicea wasn't about defining which books were to make up the Bible, it was mainly about Christ's relationship with God the Father; whether Jesus was begotten and what that meant. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Biblical_canon

 Since the Canon wasn't the topic, there is no way of knowing which books of the Bible were consulted. The council was more about unifying Christianity in general. Had there been a major dispute about which books were or weren't Canon, that would have no doubt manifested itself at this point. So, in conclusion; if the implication is that the Nicene Creed is flawed because it supposedly didn't consult the entire Bible, that would be a wrong accusation, since we had convened at Nicea, perhaps a body of believers unlike any that would ever be assembled again this side of Heaven. Their combined knowledge of the Bible led to what we have in the Creed.