So from a hospital point of view, the concept of mechanical thrombectomy without lytics is something that tends to be a positive margin contribution procedure for the hospitals. Whenever hospitals resort to the use of lytics for the treatment of VTE, it becomes a loser for them based on the reimbursement profile, either for DVT or PE. So that helps us as well in these price discussions and negotiations with our hospital customers as these contracts roll over. So we’re continuing to be optimistic about the opportunities to selectively take price as these hospital contracts roll over, and we were able to basically bundle more value into our product offering.
MikeSarcone: Okay. Thanks, Mitch. And just one follow-up for Tom. Just on the FLAME data. Tom, you’ve mentioned a few times that if the data looks good, not only could this help change guidelines for high risk, but maybe it could also drive adoption in intermediate risk. Could you just talk about what the strategy and the messaging there looks like for the intermediate risk population? And how long it might take before you could see some incremental impact from positive FLAME data?
Tom Tu: Sure. Happy to answer that one pretty quickly. So the high-risk PE patient population, although very compelling and very high risk constitutes really only 5% to 10% of the overall PE patient population. So I think you might see some immediate messaging around that population. But I think it stands to reason if you can get excellent outcomes and safe procedures in the sickest of the sick patients, why wouldn’t you want to offer that kind of therapy for the patients who are a little more stable, but much more numerous. And I think that kind of justification could be very compelling for the bulk of our customers out there. Understand that we are simultaneously gathering randomized data in those patient populations. So more data will be forthcoming. But in the meantime, I think the FLAME data results could move even the middle of the pack there as far as intermediate risk patients.
MikeSarcone: Okay. Thanks Tom.
Operator: The next question is from Richard Newitter with Truist. Please go ahead.
Richard Newitter: Hi, thanks for taking the questions. Maybe just to start, on the international contribution, could you give us a sense, do you think international as a percentage of sales is going to increase in ’23?
Drew Hykes: Yes. So I think we’re relatively early still, obviously, in the international rollout. It’s a very modest percent of sales you saw some place in the low single-digit percent of sales. I think as we continue to ramp internationally and gain traction in Europe and then in particular, as we start adding some of the larger markets in Asia Pacific, both Japan and China. I think over time, clearly, it will become a larger and larger percentage of the overall revenue mix. I think on a relative basis in ’23, I got to think, of course, it’s going to be north of where it was in ’22. Beyond that, I’m not sure we’re going to put a specific number to it, but it is clearly growing faster than the broader business now of, albeit a pretty modest base still.
Richard Newitter: Okay. That’s helpful. And then maybe just on the new products and the pricing strategy there. It’s still early. This is a little bit different than the way you’ve priced your portfolio historically. So I’m just curious on how you arrived at the price point, particularly ProTrieve 4000, how the pricing strategy is going so far for some of these newer products? What are you learning? Do you think there will need to be any fine-tuning? And then I’m just curious from a modeling standpoint, how we should be thinking about or modeling, specifically pricing here? Is this just ASP lift for DVT on ProTrieve? Or I’m just trying to think from a modeling standpoint, what you may or may not disclose going forward so we can parse out the contribution from core U.S. VTE. Thanks.
