Yes. Thanks for the questions, Joanne. Yes, our biggest competition in vascular closure worldwide is some combination of compression and suturing, figure of eight, typically. And so, we are looking – we penetrated, as I said, more than 80% of the T600 that does 90% of the procedures in the U.S. Within those, our utilization rates are still in the low to mid-40s. And that’s our biggest single opportunity is converting folks off of manual compression or suturing to our more sophisticated, clearly superior technology. And so that’s the process that’s underway. When we say we’ve penetrated an account, we may have one set of clinicians or one EP lab within that account using our closure device. We still have to work our way through the others. In some cases, there are challenges with value-added committees. What’s their cycle for meeting? Do we have the approval? Are clinicians aware that they’re able to use the technology? And then what we do see with VASCADE in all forms is that once a clinician has adopted, it’s incredibly sticky. It’s just a better procedure. And you see that in all the use cases, in terms of the outcomes, in terms of patient satisfaction, we hear that, the nursing staff hears that. And then after the fact, when they start to accumulate some volume, they can see how beneficial it is to the economics of the hospital overall. So it really checks all boxes, Joanne. It’s better clinically, it’s better economically, and we have an increasing body of evidence, real-world evidence, to support that case. So we feel quite good about it. With regard to PFA, we’ve done extensive animal testing before we brought MVP to the market for regulatory approval. We got the PMA, as I mentioned before, in our last call, and we wanted to proceed with a limited market release just to make sure we have firsthand experience on the use case before we do what we’re doing now, which is roll it broadly. Does that answer your question?