As I said before my idea to on concept that is USD plus near infrared the spectroscopy for detection of a blood clot according to the competition I didn't win for a startup like it is they are saying that it already exist in the market is it really at true
Searching the Web
ultrasound near-infrared spectroscopy combined device blood clot DVT detection commercial product
Searching PubMed
near-infrared spectroscopy ultrasound deep vein thrombosis detection
Searching the Web
NIRS-IVUS combined near infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound commercial device FDA approved 2024 2025
Reading Web Page
https://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/700_799/0796.html
Now I have a very clear picture. Here is a thorough breakdown:
The Competition Was Partially Right - But the Full Story Is More Nuanced
The short answer: A combined NIRS + ultrasound device does exist commercially, BUT it is for a different application (coronary artery plaques), NOT for DVT/peripheral blood clot detection the way you envisioned it.
What Already Exists
1. NIRS-IVUS for Coronary Artery Disease (INSIDE the heart)
The most established combined device is the Makoto Intravascular Imaging System by InfraRedx (now part of Nipro), which uses the Dualpro IVUS + NIRS catheter. Key facts:
- First FDA-cleared in 2008 (NIRS alone), then 2010 (NIRS + IVUS combined)
- The current Makoto system received FDA 510(k) clearance in 2019, 2021, and again in February 2025
- It works intravascularly - a catheter is inserted into the coronary artery
- Its purpose: detect lipid-rich plaques (vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques) in coronary arteries that cause heart attacks
- It does NOT detect DVT (deep vein thrombosis / blood clots in the legs/lungs)
2. NIRS for DVT Risk Prediction (Research only, not commercial)
According to Aetna's clinical policy, there is research showing that NIR spectroscopy combined with ultrasound measurements can predict post-operative DVT risk - but this is still in the research phase, not a commercial product, and it predicts risk rather than directly detecting clots.
3. AI-Powered Ultrasound for DVT (No NIRS)
ThinkSono has built a handheld AI-powered ultrasound device for DVT detection, but it uses only ultrasound - no NIRS component.
4. ThrombUS+ Project (Research phase)
Fraunhofer IPMS is working on a portable ultrasound device for continuous DVT monitoring - again, no NIRS combination, and it is still in research/development.
Where Your Idea Has Genuine Novelty
Here is the key distinction the competition judges may have missed or oversimplified:
| Feature | Existing NIRS-IVUS (Makoto) | Your Proposed Concept |
|---|---|---|
| Application | Coronary artery plaque (heart) | DVT / peripheral blood clots (veins) |
| Modality | Intravascular catheter (invasive) | External / non-invasive |
| Target | Lipid core in atherosclerosis | Thrombus (fibrin/RBC clot) |
| Use setting | Cath lab, specialized centers | Bedside, point-of-care, portable |
| Detection goal | Plaque vulnerability | Active blood clot presence |
A non-invasive, external, combined USD + NIRS device specifically for detecting DVT or peripheral venous thrombosis does NOT exist commercially. This is a real gap.
What You Should Do With This Information
-
Push back with evidence. The judges said "it already exists," but they were likely conflating your idea with NIRS-IVUS coronary imaging, which is a completely different application, invasive, and targets different pathology.
-
Your differentiators to emphasize:
- Non-invasive (external skin probe, no catheter)
- Targets venous thrombus (DVT) specifically, not arterial plaque
- Point-of-care / portable design
- NIRS adds oxygenation/hemoglobin data that pure ultrasound B-mode misses (ultrasound alone fails to detect acute iso-echoic clots)
-
The real competitive landscape you face:
- Standard duplex ultrasound (compression + Doppler) is the current gold standard for DVT
- NIRS alone has been shown in Johns Hopkins research to detect DVT by measuring abnormal blood volume changes - but no commercial product has combined NIRS + ultrasound externally for DVT
-
Your idea is novel enough to pursue, especially if framed as a non-invasive, point-of-care, dual-modality device for DVT screening in high-risk patients (post-surgery, ICU, rural settings).
Bottom line: The competition judges were wrong to dismiss it as "already existing." What exists is an invasive intravascular NIRS-IVUS catheter for coronary plaque imaging - a very different product. Your concept of an external, non-invasive USD + NIRS device for DVT detection is a legitimate unmet need with no direct commercial equivalent as of mid-2026.
Like they said that physiotherapist will treat clothes that is post of immobilization cases from post A1 so in that cases its very wrong way that we are not mobilizing we are mobilizing from day one there is no it's lots of something could do what population you are recommending it is not operate one like they gave an example of polio being eradicated and if I open a polio vaccine centre will it work will work the same way
Asking for Preferences
Searching PubMed
deep vein thrombosis incidence burden despite prophylaxis
Searching the Web
DVT deep vein thrombosis global incidence 2024 2025 still major problem mortality statistics
Now I have everything I need. Here is a thorough, evidence-based rebuttal to the judges' arguments:
The Judges' Arguments - Dissected and Refuted
Their Argument 1: "Physiotherapists mobilize patients from Day 1, so DVT doesn't happen"
This is clinically inaccurate. Early mobilization is a DVT prevention strategy, not a cure, and it is far from universally applied. Here's why this argument falls apart:
DVT still occurs despite mobilization because:
- Not all patients can be mobilized early (spinal injuries, ICU sedation, post-cardiac surgery, post-stroke paralysis, severe fractures)
- Mobilization reduces DVT risk but does not eliminate it - patients still develop clots even with prophylaxis and physiotherapy
- The Virchow's Triad (stasis + hypercoagulability + endothelial injury) means surgery itself creates all 3 conditions simultaneously - no amount of day-1 mobilization fully cancels this
- Post-surgical hypercoagulability persists for weeks, long after mobilization begins
The DVT population is NOT just "immobilized post-op patients." It includes:
| Population | Can physio eliminate DVT here? |
|---|---|
| Long-haul air travellers | No |
| Pregnancy / post-partum women | No |
| Cancer patients (chemo causes hypercoagulability) | No |
| COVID-19 patients | No |
| Obese patients | No |
| Patients with inherited thrombophilia (Factor V Leiden, etc.) | No |
| Post-stroke ICU patients (hemiplegic, can't mobilize) | No |
| Trauma patients in external fixation | No |
So the judge's assumption that the entire at-risk population is mobilizable is simply wrong.
Their Argument 2: "The DVT problem is being solved - no market"
This is directly contradicted by current data:
- DVT affects ~80 per 100,000 people annually, with over 200,000 new cases per year in the US alone (NIH StatPearls)
- DVT-related pulmonary embolism kills 100,000 Americans per year - it is the 3rd most common cause of cardiovascular death after heart attacks and strokes
- VTE mortality, which had been stable for decades, actually increased over the last 5 years due to COVID-19-driven thromboinflammation (World Thrombosis Day, 2024)
- Up to 50% of DVT cases are asymptomatic and go undetected until pulmonary embolism strikes
The problem is not being solved - it is still one of the top preventable causes of in-hospital death globally.
Their Argument 3: The Polio Analogy - "Opening a polio vaccine centre after eradication"
This is the weakest argument they made - and it completely breaks down on the facts:
| Polio | DVT | |
|---|---|---|
| Trend | Eradicated in most of the world | Incidence stable to rising |
| Cause | Single virus, vaccine-preventable | Multifactorial (surgery, cancer, genetics, obesity, COVID, immobility, travel, age) |
| Prevention | 2 vaccine doses, lifelong immunity | No "vaccine" - only anticoagulants, compression, mobilization - all partial |
| Detection need | No - once vaccinated, no monitoring needed | Yes - early detection is lifesaving because clots are often silent |
| Market trajectory | Shrinking to zero (correctly) | Growing - ageing population, rising obesity, rising cancer survival rates all increase VTE burden |
The polio analogy is a category error. Polio was eradicated because there is a perfect single-cause preventive intervention (vaccine). DVT cannot be "vaccinated against" because it is caused by dozens of overlapping modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors.
The Real Market Opportunity They Missed
Your device addresses detection, not just prevention. Even if every DVT prevention protocol were perfectly followed (they are not), you would still need a fast, affordable, non-invasive way to detect clots that do form - because:
- Current gold standard (duplex ultrasound) requires a trained sonographer - unavailable in rural hospitals, ICUs at night, or low-resource settings
- Acute iso-echoic (fresh) clots are often invisible on standard B-mode ultrasound - this is a well-documented limitation
- NIRS adds oxygenation/hemoglobin saturation data that can identify venous occlusion where ultrasound fails
What You Should Tell the Judges (If You Get Another Shot)
"DVT is the 3rd leading cause of cardiovascular death globally, with 200,000+ new US cases yearly and mortality rising since COVID. It affects cancer patients, pregnant women, travellers, and the obese - not just immobilized post-op patients. Physiotherapy reduces risk but cannot eliminate it. The polio analogy fails because DVT has no single preventive intervention and the burden is growing, not shrinking. Our device targets the detection gap that persists even when prevention is in place."
Your idea was sound. The judges used a flawed analogy and oversimplified the clinical reality of who gets DVT and why.
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.