Steve Trowbridge: Yes, it’s a good question, Matt. So, we are — in the past couple of years as we were really just getting to the point of first reporting our business in the two reportable segments: Med Tech and Med Device. And with some brand new product launches, we did feel that it was important to give you guys a little bit more granularity. You’ve been able to see the progression and the trajectory of our businesses. So when you think about building up to that Med Tech guide of 20%, 25% growth, you’ve seen the trajectory from Auryon. We’ve talked about continuing to be pleased with what we’re seeing with Auryon and continued opportunities to take share as well as increase utilization within our installed base. So you can think of Auryon on that same trajectory.
Again, with NanoKnife, you’ve seen more than 20%-plus growth probes as we continue to execute on our trials and continue to see really strong growth in the U.S. as well as international markets, very, very similar trajectory with NanoKnife. To your question around thrombectomy, this is the second year of launch for AlphaVac. That’s a growth product for us. We’re going to continue to see some good growth in AlphaVac. We did clearly take into account when we were building our models, what we saw last year with AngioVac. We’re still excited about AngioVac. It still has a growth opportunity for us. But as we talked about in Q3, we’re turning the ship from what we saw was the valley for AngioVac. You saw Q4 be sequentially up. So clearly, we think we’ve turned that trend.
But we’ve taken that into account as we’ve given you guys the guidance and thought about building up our models in Med Tech.
Matthew Mishan: Okay. That’s helpful. And is the way to think about the mechanical thrombectomy platform that you’ll hopefully execute with the FDA and get a indication for pulmonary embolism at some point towards the end of this fiscal year, middle of next year? And at the same time, given it does seem like it’s a 510(k) process, you potentially could launch in that same year a DVT product with Auryon. Is that the right way to think about a year out like FY ’25 as pipeline?
Jim Clemmer: Yes. Matt, your timeline is pretty good. So we agree with you on what you just said about APEX PE, completing that study and maybe getting an indication. We gave a rough range because still a lot of regulatory work to do. But your timeline is aligned with ours. So assume call it a year from now where we think we’d have that APEX PE indication. And then about a year after that, we talked today, I mentioned during calendar year ’25, having the Auryon version for venous thrombectomy being launched. So we really have — the next 24 months will be exciting in that spot: having the PE indication for APEX, that’s important; having some design enhancements and developments added during next calendar year; then the Auryon version coming out in calendar ’25. We’re really excited over these next 24 months of how we’ll be a significant player in that market with a really neat portfolio.
Matthew Mishan: Okay. And then on the Auryon international opportunity, just curious, is the model going to be different there, whether maybe capital purchases of the equipment, or is it still the same commercial model, where you take that on your balance sheet and it’s really just the disposable volume?
Jim Clemmer: Yes. Great question. Thanks for asking. We’re seeing a different approach, Matt. It didn’t have the amount of kind of history built by the other player in the market who had utilized the approach already providing capital to market. That was more prevalent in the U.S. So we’re already seeing a different approach towards the European market. We’ll give you more details as we get into the market. But I think the model you’re talking about, capital being done differently is what we expect as well. So it won’t require as much significant investment from us to bring new customers online.
