Mitch Hill: Yeah. I mean, Chris — sorry, David. Again, we’re not providing the guidance at that level of detail. We are seeing the global VTE number continuing to grow sort of along the lines of what we experienced here in Q1, if not a little bit better. We are excited about the growth prospects for the international business, and then our emerging therapies business is going to continue to build out this year. Tom just talked about the VenaCore product, which is going to add to the CBD portfolio. And then later in the year, we’ll have the Artix product. So we have some nice catalysts there to help us continue to build out kind of a multi-product platform opportunity for the company. Overall, I would comment on the market growth issue versus our specific growth in global VTE, and just say that it’s kind of not a straight line.
There’s going to be some puts and takes each quarter. Overall, as Drew mentioned during the prepared remarks, we are super excited about the opportunity to expand the interventional penetration rate into the treatment of VTE diseases. We think it could be two to three times the size it is currently. So that is just a really terrific opportunity for us, and we feel like we’re just getting started with that. It’s going to be a little bit of ebbs and flows quarter to quarter as we move forward. But if we picture where the business can be, sort of in the three to five to seven-year timeframe, including the readouts of multiple RCTs and guideline changes and things like that, we’re super excited about the prospects.
David Rescott: Okay, great. Thanks. And maybe that’s a good segue to my next question, just specifically on the two-year kind of cloud data, specifically on the lower PTS rate than we saw in some of the prior trials. I’m curious if the data that you’ve seen there is enough at this point or has been enough to drive maybe incremental conversions of some physicians who may have been more hesitant to switch over to a thrombectomy, specifically on the PTS kind of readout there, and whether or not longer term, if and once this goes into guidelines, whether or not you think these results would benefit the thrombectomy category as a whole, or whether or not this is more specific to what you’re seeing from ClotTriever alone. Thank you.
Drew Hykes: Great. Thanks for the question, David. So I’ll answer them in reverse order. The ClotTriever system has a unique mechanism of action, and we believe that’s the only device that has led to the kind of fantastic clinical results that we presented most recently in the CLOUT’s two-year interim data. I think the top line readout of that data set shows that mechanical thrombectomy with ClotTriever is the best at removing thrombus, and that translates into the best short-term safety results, as well as long-term safety and efficacy in prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome. And we’re very happy about that data set and pleased to report it. I think as far as the commercial impact of the data set, you’re going to see this affect two different physician populations, right?
Of course, those that are still kind of mired in conservative therapy or old-fashioned therapy for DVT certainly have more reason to believe in ClotTriever. And then folks who perhaps have chosen alternative means to treat DVT now recognize the superior safety profile and efficacy of this device with better data than anything else that’s out there.
Operator: The next question comes from Michael Sarcone with Jefferies. Please go ahead.
Michael Sarcone: Hey, good afternoon, and thanks for taking my question. Tom, maybe we can keep you in the hot seat. Just a follow up on the PEERLESS II commentary. And I believe you had mentioned the data set, if positive, could help catalyze more uptake of mechanical thrombectomy. What would you characterize or what are you looking for to define success or a positive read on that trial?
Tom Tu: Sure. So, Michael, just for clarification, I believe you might be referencing PEERLESS I, which is our RCT of FlowTriever versus catheter-directed thrombolysis for PE patients. That’s the one whose enrollment is complete and whose data set we will anticipate presenting in a major clinical meeting in the second half of this year. I think what you’re going to see there is a strategy kind of endpoint, not to go into too much of the details, but it’s a win-ratio analysis of FlowTriever versus catheter-directed thrombolysis with important clinical as well as resource utilization metrics, things such as mortality, bleeding, clinical deterioration and bailout, as well as hospital ICU utilization. And I think all of those are known benefits for our therapies over CDT, and we anticipate that this data, if positive, is going to reiterate those benefits and drive more people towards our therapy.
Michael Sarcone: Got it. Thanks, Tom. And then maybe one for Mitch. Can you just talk about how you’re thinking about the cadence of gross margin for the balance of the year?
Mitch Hill: Sure. Happy to do that. I think the 86.8% margin in Q1, as I mentioned, there were some fluctuations there due to product mix and due to some ramp-up for the new products and the internationalization. As we think about that for the remainder of the year, it looks like it’ll be fairly flat or fairly consistent with that number, so not a significant fluctuation in that as we move through the rest of the year.
Michael Sarcone: Got it. Thank you, Mitch.
Mitch Hill: Yep. Thank you.
Operator: The next question comes from Mike Matson with Needham. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey, guys. This is Joseph on for Mike. Just another one on gross margin. Maybe the reason why it was down this quarter, or I guess, was pricing a factor this quarter. What’s the pricing been like? Has it generally been stable?
Mitch Hill: Yeah. I’m happy to help you with that. And the pricing, we’re happy to report, has been very stable to even up for Inari. We’ve been successful, working with our customers. As you know, historically, we had the VTE. PPP is something that’s kind of come into the picture over the past year or two. Starting out from a couple of years ago, it was just kind of the PE, price per procedure, and then the ClotTriever was sold on an SKU basis. And now we’ve kind of been able to offer a package to many hospitals so that the treating physicians are able to avail themselves of really all of the tools. It’s particularly useful in the complex DVT cases, which are probably around 15% to 20% of those, where they can use the sort of the coring element of the ClotTriever to remove clot that’s well adherent.
And they can also use the aspiration of the FlowTriever to remove clot that may be up around the IBC, the IBC filter parts of the anatomy. So the pricing has been very stable to up for us. And we are continuing to work with hospitals to expand the concept of that kind of that pricing package.
Unidentified Analyst: Okay. Yeah, that’s helpful. Just to reiterate, did you say 15% to 20% of the complex cases, those customers are opting for the package deal?
