All right, good morning, and welcome back to the 2024 Wells Fargo Healthcare Conference. I'm Larry Biegelsen, the medical device analyst, and it's my pleasure to host this session with the management team from Inari. With us, we have Drew Hykes, the CEO, Mitch Hill, the current CFO, Kevin Strange, who is the incoming CFO and is currently Senior Vice President of Finance, Accounting, Strategy, and BD, and Dr. Tom Tu, Chief Medical Officer. The format is fireside chat. If you have a question, please raise your hand. Gentlemen, thanks so much for being here. Great to be here. Thank you, Larry. Let's start out by addressing the noise around the FlowSaver product. Can you talk about the safety of the blood return system, and what you're seeing in the field from this product, please? Sure. Happy to talk about that, Larry. So, just to level set, we're talking about pulmonary embolism patients predominantly. These are patients in a very sensitive hemodynamic state due to their disease, and what we know is that shifts in blood volume, removing blood, getting transfusions, all increase the rate of adverse events. Inari mitigates blood loss through two primary mechanisms. One is that we use 60 cc syringes to remove the blood, so the physician has very tight control over how much blood is removed. Additionally, because of the 24 French Lumen, we have very effective thrombectomy, so not many aspirations have to be performed. The second mechanism of action is what you referred to, Larry, which is the FlowSaver device. That was introduced about three years ago. It went through rigorous FDA testing to show no evidence of blood damage called hemolysis, contamination, anything like that. It's a completely closed sterile system. We've used it in over 70,000 patients, and in fact, over 90%-95% of our PE procedures use the FlowSaver device. There's been numerous publications showing the safety and efficacy of this system, and in fact, just recently at the European Society of Cardiology meeting last week, there was an independent study published, 4,000 patients, half of which used FlowSaver, half of which did not. It showed FlowSaver reduced mortality and reduced transfusions. Okay. What about in the field? What are you seeing in the field? It's a standard part of the use of the device. Physicians love it. They say it's the primary differentiator for Inari because you can aspirate blood and not have any concerns about blood loss. Again, used in over 90%-95% of all cases. And then, Drew, you're confident this is not gonna have a negative impact in the field? I'm confident this is not gonna have a negative impact in the field. Has not, will not. Okay. And the other issue, the other noise in the market is, you know, the FDA issued a notice regarding the labeling of your ClotTriever XL device. So how is this different from what you disclosed on the Q2 call, and what do you expect the impact to be on your business? Yeah, maybe I can get started on that. Tom may want to pile on as well. So I think bottom line, no change whatsoever from what we disclosed back on the call in July. Just to level set, as a reminder, ClotTriever XL was a product we designed for complex DVT. That's a subset of DVT patients, about 10% of the broader DVT population. Those patients have clot extending up into their IVC. It's a very complex, high-risk patient population. We designed ClotTriever XL specifically for unmet needs within that group. We brought that product to market about 18 months ago, and in the intervening period of time, have done about 1,500 cases. We saw a safety signal along the way, that related to a very specific combination of clinical presentation and procedural technique. And in July, voluntarily, in conjunction with the FDA, decided to update the labeling for ClotTriever XL, in the form of a Dear Doctor letter, and we began to communicate that back on July 19th. The product remains on the market, and the issue is not a device malfunction and is completely, 100% tied to just ClotTriever XL. We're five weeks into that, six weeks into that communication, and what occurred 10 days ago was the FDA process, catching up with that and then posting the exact same set of information on their own website, which was picked up by some media outlets. Why are you confident this won't spill over to ClotTriever, the main product? Yeah, maybe I'll jump onto that, Larry. So I think this is a great example of the robust safety system that we have in place at Inari. That we have a new product in a very specific disease state, high-risk patients, and what we saw is, in a small number of those patients, there was a safety signal with a combination of factors that Drew described. This answer to that is a technique modification and change in IFU. So this was not related to a product malfunction or defect, and notably, it was not related to the primary mechanism of action of the ClotTriever system, which is a coring element. So at no point was a coring element implicated in any of these adverse events. This is simply a modification to our instructions for ClotTriever XL. It has nothing to do with the ClotTriever line of products. Drew, in terms of commercial impact? You know, it's a no revenue impact. We stated that back in July. That continues to be our view today. This is a relatively narrow indication, a product that has a relatively low volume, and at the end of the day, the product remains on the market. It continues to be used today. Again, the only change was an updated language to the instructions for use. Okay, Tom, so you don't expect any doctors to pull back ClotTriever XL usage? We've not seen that. And keep in mind, before ClotTriever XL, many physicians were already using the FlowTriever product to help those patients. So even if there is, you know, some pivot away from CTXL, presumably they'd revert back to the FlowTriever system to treat those same patients. Okay, and why does somebody choose one versus the other, ClotTriever XL versus FlowTriever? Sure. So again, as I alluded to, this is a very high-risk, complex, subset of patients. And, what we found is that physicians want more and more efficacy to treat these complex, patients. So ClotTriever XL, the benefit is that it, enables more efficient and more complete treatment for, patients with clot in the inferior vena cava. And the instructions for use change actually still, instruct use of ClotTriever XL, just with a modified approach, pulling downward instead of upward. Okay. Tom, I'm curious. I was gonna ask about PEERLESS later- Sure. But PEERLESS is a PE trial. Yes. So I assume versus catheter-directed thrombolysis. So I assume that FlowSaver is gonna be used frequently in the PEERLESS trial. Will that study give us any helpful safety information on FlowSaver? Absolutely. I can talk more about PEERLESS in general, but to answer your question specifically, of course, safety events are one of the primary outcomes for these kinds of randomized controlled studies. And I think what we'll see in the PEERLESS presentation at TCT this year is now another look at the safety and efficacy profile that we already have established in registries now in an RCT level format. So I think there's gonna be a lot of insight into the safety and efficacy profile of our system. Then you expect. You, you gave a number about, the percent of time that FlowSaver is used. Yeah, 90%-95% of the time in all FlowTriever cases. And so you would expect to see that in PEERLESS? Exactly. Okay. All right, we'll, we'll come back to PEERLESS. Okay. All right, so we'll give Kevin, the new incoming CFO, one here before we move on to the outlook. So Kevin, incoming CFO, congratulations on the new role. Thanks, Larry. So what are your priorities, you know, in the CFO seat? Any changes that you're planning, you know, to you know guidance or anything like that, or you know that you want to share with us today? Yeah. Thanks for the question, Larry. So I've been with Inari a little over four years now. Had the good fortune of working really closely with Drew and Mitch and Tom during that time, and have worked really closely with Mitch, essentially arm in arm over the last year or so, running the day-to-day for the finance, accounting, and tax organization. I think one of our most near-term priorities is to ensure a smooth transition over the next month or so. I think we feel really good about where we are right now, and we're very confident in a smooth transition. Mitch has been good enough to stay on till the end of the year to ensure we've got a smooth handoff of the baton. But overall, we feel really good. Longer term, my priorities are very much in line with driving the strategic priorities of the company. You've heard Drew and us talk about them previously. That is, you know, at a high level, to ensure that we're continuing to make the investments to build out our presence in VTE and change the standard of care to drive disciplined and thoughtful investments in our emerging therapies businesses to drive incremental growth and continue to thoughtfully expand internationally. Fourth, I'd say also, you've heard us talk about our path to profitability journey. We feel really good about that journey that we're on, and reaching sustained operating income profitability in the first half of 2025. And a big priority for me is gonna be continuing to drive leverage in the P&L going forward beyond that. But overall, philosophically as well, very much in line with Mitch and Drew in terms of guidance, so I don't think you expect much philosophy change there. Great. Great. Thanks for that. So, so let's turn to the 2024 outlook, Drew. You know, you had a strong first half, 23% growth. Just talk about kind of how you see the rest of the year playing out. Yeah, so we feel really confident how we're positioned here halfway through the year. 23% through the first half of the year, 23% Q2 as well. And we see a number of exciting catalysts shaping up here in the second half of the year. We've got PEERLESS readout, which has now been confirmed for October 29th at TCT. That'll be the first RCT data that we bring to the market, so we're looking forward to that, certainly as a catalyst in the second half of the year. If all goes to plan, we will restart our Artix program, entering again the acute limb ischemia market here later this year in Q4. We've got NTAP coming online for LimFlow as of October 1. It should be a nice catalyst for that part of the business. And then finally, if all goes to plan, we will get started in both China and Japan as well. Those won't necessarily be big revenue events for us, those two markets, but it will be exciting to get started in those markets and gain approval and begin helping patients in those two markets. So taken together, we see a lot of catalysts out ahead of us. We have good momentum through the first half of the year, and like where we're positioned here, as reflected in the raise to guidance we put out after both Q1 and Q2. That's helpful, and talk about just the cadence of Q3, Q4. I think the sequential growth that you expected for Q3 this year is a little bit less than last year. Why is that, and is that still the case, and then you expect a little bit of an acceleration, I think, in Q4. That's right. So a lot of those catalysts you just heard me describe in the second half of the year, they remain intact. We've been tracking them as we move through the year. Many of them, or all of them, have tilted, however, into more of a Q4 timeline instead of a Q3 timeline, and I think that cadence is what underscored some of the commentary we had on the Q2 call about how to think about the revenue shaping up here on the back half of the year between Q3 and Q4? You know, I normally wouldn't push too much on Q3, but given the competitive noise, I'm gonna ask, you know, just how you're feeling about trends this quarter. Yeah, so we'll not comment on interquarter trends. What I can tell you is we had nice momentum coming out of Q2. We do encounter seasonal headwinds. Usually in Q2, we saw those. We battled our way through those, and have seen nice momentum exiting the quarter. Usually, those, seasonal tailwinds or headwinds flip to be tailwinds here in the back half of the year, and I think we're beginning to see, some of those same dynamics set up. So we're feeling good about how we exited, the first half of the year, and again, how we're positioned here being in the second half of the year. Okay. Let's turn to the end market. You know, investors have been focused on the U.S. VTE market growth, and there's been some concern about slowing growth. I mean, we estimate the market grew about 20% in Q2, down a little bit from Q1. How are you thinking about the outlook for the U.S. VTE market? Yeah, we still see plenty of runway for continued robust underlying market growth. You know, in the past, if you define the market as mechanical thrombectomy for VTE, in the past, we've characterized the underlying market growth as being in the neighborhood of 20%. That is still absolutely our view, and we see plenty of runway out ahead of us to continue to drive robust underlying market growth. We are in the earliest innings of converting this market from conservative medical management over to frontline therapy with FlowTriever and ClotTriever. We've got lots of runway out ahead to continue that. We've got new data coming, which is gonna continue to support, if not even accelerate, that market growth going forward. So we see lots of runway for that continued robust growth. That's helpful. We talked a little bit about competition, but there. You know, one of your competitors has a new product, you know, Lightning Flash 2.0. Looks like, you know, we try our best to look at the growth and the share dynamics. It looks like share, at least, you know, in the first half, started to stabilize, by our math. But, you know, the competitor's launching a new product, 2.0. Can you talk about what you're seeing from a competitive dynamic standpoint, but putting aside, you know, the issues we talked about earlier, just the new product? Hmm. Yeah, so I think stable is a good word. You know, we're eighteen months into the launch from that competitor. We see competitive dynamics in the market, but I think at this point stable is a good adjective. We remain the market leader. We have a four to one lead in PE. We believe we have a 1.5x- 2x lead in DVT, and we are confident in continuing to be the leader in this market, and that confidence stems from the evidence that we have that's only getting stronger by the day, by the performance of our purpose-built tools, which do a fantastic job of removing all the clot, the acute and chronic clot, in safe, efficient procedures with minimal to no blood loss. We have confidence in the commercial engine that we built, confidence in our IP portfolio. All of those things give us confidence that we're gonna continue to be the market leader in this fast-growth market. That's helpful, and you know, investors have obviously been focused on the U.S. VTE growth, you know, and it looks like, you know, your U.S. growth is stabilized, call it, in the mid to high teens, for VTE growth. How are you feeling about being able to maintain that type of growth? Yeah, you've heard us talk about, you know, confidence in continued underlying market growth. You've heard us talk about confidence in continuing to be the market leader in this market. We've got a modest tailwind for pricing that has been very consistent in the past, no reason to think that's gonna change. We've got exciting catalysts coming up in new evidence. New product introductions we'll be focused on next year as well within VTE. And alongside the growth in VTE, of course, we've got incremental growth that will be contributed by our emerging therapies portfolio and lots of runway for continued strength across the international component of our business. So taken together, we feel confident in continued robust growth that you've seen from us in the past. All right. So Tom, you've talked about this being a golden era of clinical studies for the VTE space. You know, why is that? And maybe we'll transition into, you know, discussion about what PEERLESS could mean. Sure. Thanks, Larry. So I think, we're just about to step into the next phase of our randomized clinical strategy, starting with, identifying huge markets with unmet needs, innovating products that actually work, and then, the IDE studies to get on-label approval. The next phase was the largest prospective registries, a thousand patients for PE, five hundred patients for DVT. Not only does that allow us to establish the safety and efficacy profile of our devices in a real-world setting, but also allows us to really hone how to conduct clinical studies in those markets, what endpoints matter to physicians and patients, and how to best study those in the setting of an RCT. And now that's the phase we're stepping into with PEERLESS I. As a reminder, PEERLESS I is the first in a series of RCTs that Inari is bringing to the space. PEERLESS I randomizes FlowTriever to catheter-directed thrombolysis for PE patients, but we're following that with PEERLESS II, looking at FlowTriever versus anticoagulation, which is the much larger portion of the market treated with conservative management. And you may have heard, we just announced yet another RCT, the PERSEVERE study, that's looking at the highest risk, the sickest of the sick patients. So we're very pleased to bring that kind of data to the PE space. We're the only company doing an RCT in the DVT space with our DEFIANCE study. And taken together, our efforts, plus some efforts with government-sponsored research and other companies, I think, really is. Geralding this golden age of research, which I would say has a lot of parallels to other disease states, like heart attack, stroke, aortic stenosis. All of those markets saw tremendous inflection points when RCT-level data came out, not just one study, but a series of studies shifting standard of care. Got it. So on PEERLESS, are you gonna host an analyst meeting around that data? I don't know if we've gotten that far yet. We just got a formal confirmation that we have been accepted as a late breaker at TCT. That'll be Tuesday, October 29th. So we'll have more to share about how we will be communicating that data, but rest assured, there'll be plenty of communication around that data release. Simultaneous publication, Tom? Sure, of course. Any late breaker at TCT gets considered for simultaneous publication. What I would say is more important to get the data in the hands of users, and then the publication process takes its own path. So, we'll see. Tom, what would be a positive trial in your view? I think, there's several things I would point to as positives. One is just the fact that we're bringing now RCT-level data, I think, raising the bar. Before, I think you could look at other devices, other disease states, where you have promising technology, but it never gets subjected to the rigors of RCT, and you never get the kind of full realization of the opportunity I think that is possible. And I think that's not gonna be true in PE, as I alluded to previously, with a series of RCTs. If you look at the endpoints of the PEERLESS I study, these are hard clinical endpoints. This is not an imaging surrogate endpoint. This is not kind of second-order types of endpoints. These are things like mortality, like intracerebral bleeding, major bleeding, clinical deterioration, ICU length of stay. Each one of these endpoints was vetted as an important endpoint to physicians, to patients, to hospitals. The study has an interesting statistical analysis called Win Ratio. Win Ratio is a kind of a modern statistical approach that has been endorsed by FDA and a lot of high-end cardiovascular studies, and essentially compares the number of wins in strategy A versus the number of wins in strategy B. And we're very excited that a positive Win Ratio is gonna show the superiority of one therapy over another. That's helpful. And before we. And what do you think it'd be? Do you think we'll see an impact right away, or does this need to be in guidelines? You know, how do you think the, you know, it will impact the clinical practice? Yeah. - if positive? Just to level set on what the market opportunity is, despite all of our advances, despite the growth in mechanical thrombectomy, we estimate that CDT still performed in about 30% of procedures in the U.S. to treat pulmonary embolism. I think if PEERLESS shows superiority of FlowTriever versus CDT, you can see a shift of that market in a very short period of time. The reason why I have confidence in that is because this is a very anticipated trial. There's a lot of folks who've been waiting for RCT-level data to make decisions about treatment choice. There's a lot of folks standing on the sidelines saying, "I'm not sure I want to get into pulmonary embolism thrombectomy until I see RCT-level evidence." So I think you're seeing the shift via Q4 as well as into 2025 event. Okay, that's helpful. Just gonna. before we transition to emerging therapies, I want to ask you one other question. Per next week, anything we should be aware of, you know, that data-wise coming out next week? I don't think anything substantive, Larry. You might be referring to maybe some messaging that competitors have said about, "Oh, we're gonna present something that questions the safety of FlowSaver." The truth is, that's kind of been a historical narrative of, you know, casting aspersions. I don't think there's gonna be anything that combats 70,000 patient uses, a 4,000-patient study just presented at the European Society of Cardiology, soon to come RCT-level evidence, demonstrating a comparison to CDT, as well as reinforcing safety and efficacy that we've shown in registry data, so nothing of that significance for sure. That's helpful. So emerging therapies, if we look at Q2, I think emerging therapy revenue was $8 million. Maybe talk about the rank order of contribution from the emerging therapy portfolio. Sure, so just to level set, within emerging therapies, we essentially have four other targeted addressable markets, where we have identified unmet needs and are working to address those. We're early on in all four of those. Taken together, it's still a relatively small part of the revenue mix, but it's got great potential and is already growing nicely and accretive to the overall growth profile. The four are chronic venous disease, and we've got two products there, RevCore and VenaCore. VenaCore is about four months into the full market release, so we're seeing some nice uptake from those two products within chronic venous disease. We've got InThrill, which is a product that has been designed for AV fistula declots, the second component within emerging therapies. We've got LimFlow, of course, which is in emerging therapies. We're about ten months post acquisition of LimFlow. We can talk more about how that product is progressing, but we like what we're seeing. This was a foundation-building year for LimFlow, but there's certainly commercial activity and growth within LimFlow that's included within emerging therapies. And then the fourth and final component of emerging therapies is Artix and acute limb ischemia. No contribution or measurable contribution in Q2 from Artix. If all goes to plan, we will reenter acute limb ischemia market with Artix in Q4, so that one's not in there. But the first three are combined into that emerging therapies revenue contribution. Artix taking a little bit longer than expected? I wouldn't say that. We are working through the FDA submission process. We've been working really a year and a half to reboot that program. We brought Artix to market with the first-gen platform. We saw good safety, but we knew we had more work to do from an effectiveness and ease-of-use standpoint, and that's what we've been focused on over the last eighteen months. We have brought that Artix submission to the FDA and are at that stage of the final part of the process, waiting to get clearance, and then we'll get started on the limited market release, as I said. So when you expect, emerging therapies to account for 20% of total revenue at some point, when we think about kind of the four or five, you know, products, including Artix, that you just outlined, which one or two that will, you know, contribute the most? Yeah. So we're excited about all four. If you force me to choose a couple- Five. Artix? Artix? I'm kidding. Well, that's one of the four. If you made me choose two of the four, you know, LimFlow is obviously a really compelling opportunity for us. It is a spectacular unmet need for patients. A large $1.5 billion TAM. We are just in the very first inning of getting going with our LimFlow. So that clearly is an exciting opportunity for us. And most of all, an exciting opportunity to have an impact on a group of patients that is in desperate need of new options. If you look at the size of the TAM, CVD is the largest of the TAMs within emerging therapies. Plenty of runway out ahead, plenty of work to do from a market development standpoint, but another large group of patients without any historical purpose-built tools to help that patient population. You know, Artix is a smaller TAM, acute limb ischemia, but I think compelling, and that is a developed market. If you get a cold leg, you're getting treated one way or the other. So we don't have the same kind of market development lift in that market that we see in some of the other markets we participate in. I think for that reason, we're excited to reenter with Artix. So taking together some really exciting catalysts across all four of those emerging therapies. And then on LimFlow, the NTAP goes in place on October 1. Physician coding, physician fee, what's the status there? Yeah. So, as you heard Drew mention, Larry, we're really excited about the progress we're seeing with LimFlow out of the gate. 10 months ago, we closed the transaction. We've been working on integration for the last several months. Feel really good about where we are from an integration perspective, and have gotten through some of the major early hurdles, so that's really positive. From a reimbursement perspective, as you noted, the NTAP will go into place October 1. That'll be an incremental $16,000 for the inpatient setting on top of the already existing reimbursement, which is already provides a relatively attractive economic proposition for the hospitals. So we really like what we're seeing. Obviously, foundation building year. We're putting the blocks in place for broader dissemination of the therapy. We're training interventionalists. We're getting through the VAC committees. Importantly, we're focusing on choosing the right patients, so we're getting really positive clinical outcomes. But overall, we really like what we're seeing. We like the momentum, and we think we're setting ourselves up for a very positive 2025. But the physician fee, the NTAP, is for the DRG. The physician payment is in coding. Is there any work that needs to be done there? Yeah, there is established physician payment for the LimFlow procedure already. If you look at dollars or RVU per physician effort, for instance, I think what you'll see is the payment is very similar to all sorts of high-end vascular procedures that doctors do. Got it. Okay. That's helpful. And Japan and China, how are you thinking about the ramp there? So we're grinding along. We're two years into the effort to gain approval in those two markets, and we're close. If all goes to plan, we'll get started in both China and Japan by the end of this year. Those aren't necessarily gonna be big revenue events for us, at least in 2024. But as you look out beyond 2024 into 2025, for instance, those are two big markets, important markets for us. They're gonna be important within the international franchise. Certainly, China, in particular, just given the demographics, is a huge opportunity and a spectacular unmet need for those patients. So we're excited to get to the starting line, really, in both those markets. Have you told us the go-to-market strategy yet? Direct, you know, distributor for China and Japan? We haven't. Rest assured, over the last couple of years, as we've been working on the regulatory front and reimbursement front, we've been equally deliberate and intentional about developing the go-to-market strategy and the commercial strategy. And I think as we approach the starting line for those two markets, we'll have more to share along those lines for both China and Japan. Okay. All right. So the 2025 question. So, consensus, I think, is 700. Just talk about maybe the puts and takes first, how to think about next year. Yeah. So, you know, we will likely roll out our formal guidance here early in 2025, as we've done in the past. But in the meantime, what I can tell you is we feel really confident about how we're positioned here halfway through this year. Many of the catalysts that I described shaping up in the second half of this year are gonna carry over and drive momentum in 2025. So Artix, PEERLESS, of course, LimFlow, leveraging the foundation we'll have built with LimFlow, China and Japan, as we were just talking about. All those catalysts are gonna continue to drive growth in 2025. We've got additional catalysts on top of that. We'll have more data coming out. We've got a pipeline that will continue to deliver innovation as we move through 2025, continued growth in international. So taken together, we feel good about how we're positioned here halfway through this year and how 2025 is shaping up as well. You know, we grew 28% in 2023, 23% so far this year. Historically, we've always talked about aspiring to be a 20% grower, and I think we're confident that that is going to be our continued target as we move forward. That's helpful. Is there another randomized controlled trial coming out next year, Tom? Is there- So, not from Inari. PEERLESS I, I told you, is coming out TCT this year. PEERLESS II is a much larger study. That's 1,200 patients, so it's not going to be a 2025 completion date, but we're very excited the enrollment is at or even above our expectations. There is a competitor study called HI-PEITHO, which is the EKOS system versus anticoagulation, sponsored by Boston Scientific. It's possible that study might be complete in 2025. And going back to the golden era, I think there are other competitors, and hopefully, their RCT level data is also gonna be an uplift for the whole space. That's helpful. And Drew, back to 2025. Based on your comment, it seems like the consensus is $711 million or 18.5% year-over-year growth. At this point, you wouldn't point out anything that the street is missing, it sounds like. Yeah. Again, we'll wait on formal consensus, or formal guidance rather, till early next year. What I can tell you is we feel very confident about how we're positioned here. We've always aspired to be a 20% grower, and I think if you look at our track record, we've certainly delivered- over-delivered on that aspiration. That's helpful. Drew, on Artix, that's you said a pretty well-penetrated market or established market, one major player on the thrombectomy side. Why do you think, what is it about Artix that would get somebody to switch? So similar to how we've approached all of our other disease states, with Artix, we started with a blank slate, and we identified unmet needs within acute limb ischemia. Keep in mind, only about 50% of those patients are even being offered endovascular treatment today. The remaining 50% are still undergoing open surgical. I think that reflects some of the shortcomings of the existing endovascular approaches, and Artix has been designed specifically for acute limb ischemia. It's got a mechanical thrombectomy component. It's got an aspirational component. It's got a proximal flow arrest component. We think all of those components working in concert with one another are gonna give physicians a really compelling purpose-built tool for the first time to address unmet needs in that patient population. So what are the unmet needs? I mean, you talked about the features. What are the benefits? Yeah. Is it like, you know, if for just an investor who doesn't understand the, you know, the technology or the, you know, the technical aspects, is it safety? Is it in efficacy? Is it speed? Yeah. I think it's all of the above, Larry. So if you look at patients who present with cold leg, they oftentimes don't get one therapy. They get multiple therapies because each therapy is insufficient to completely resolve the problem. So for instance, patient might come in and get a mechanical thrombectomy, but then they have to get lytics because of residual thrombus, and then eventually end up with open surgery anyway. We believe that distal embolization is a major problem. Lack of complete thrombus removal is a problem, and that's what Artix is designed to mitigate. Got it. All right, Drew, 40 seconds left. I'll give you the last word. We covered a lot of ground, but, if there's anything else you wanna share or summarize, you know, the floor is yours. In 30 seconds. Listen- You can go over, by the way. First of all, thank you all for your interest this morning. I know it's been a long week for everybody, so we certainly appreciate the engagement. I hope, if nothing else, you've heard the confidence we have and how we're positioned here halfway through the year, the strength we have across the business, the runway out ahead of us within VTE, still a massive opportunity, and I think some exciting contributions to come, and continue to deliver from emergent therapies as well as the international component of the business. So we appreciate the engagement. Thank you, guys. Wow, perfect timing. Thank you. Thanks for being here.