David Fischel : Sure. Hi, Neil, so I think we’ve also discussed this somewhat in the past, as you say, we have performed an animal study using the MAGiC catheter variance of it with PFA generators and got kind of nice results from that. And mechanistically, there’s a lot of rationale to using the benefits of robotic magnetic navigation with pulse field energy — pulse field energy can be very efficacious, but it does require being a contact during that short burst of therapy with the tissue and manual catheters are less stable on the beating heart and so kind of there’s a rationale to why we provide the improved lesion when being combined PFA, overall kind of we’ve been taking approach. There are multiple now many, many companies with PFA generators and PFA technology, we have been engaging and doing some technology work with various of them.
And I think kind of we’re going to see how – how best to create from those collaborations and some of the technology work that we’ve been doing, how to create an actual regulatory path, where we could do — we could shift from preclinical work to actual clinical first in human work and with an actual via regulatory path to bring a PFA product to market. I think kind of developing of the MAGIC catheter has given us a foundation from which we can build on because finally, for the first time, we own our own ablation catheter. And so that kind of has been very helpful, both in being able to use a variant of that with PFA and then also facilitating other companies to be able to create variants of their own catheters that can be spilled in the robotic environment in collaboration with us.
And so again, we’re kind of in the process of working with different parties on how that could kind of come to market.
Neil Chatterji: Great. Thanks. Maybe just a follow-up just on OpEx. I guess with the kind of the ongoing work you have and kind of the plan work, how should we think about kind of R&D expense kind of in the back half and into 2024 and then maybe additionally, just on the pipeline, any update on your kind of work and development in connectivity?
David Fischel: Sure. So in terms of R&D expense, I’d expect that to be more or less flat. There are kind of gives and takes there. So kind of some of the projects have definitely gone through the majority of their spending and now it’s kind of more cleanup internal work with very little external spending, very little purchasing that needs to take place for them to come to completion. Others like running clinical studies kind of obviously ramp up the expenses. And so I think kind of when I look at the gives and takes of the different projects, you should expect overall spending to be more or less flat kind of an IDE study would be more expensive. And so depending on how things go there next year, we could see an increase in R&D expense.
But I’d say in the back half of this year, I’d expect it more or less equal to the first half of this year. And kind of I think, generally, from an OpEx perspective, we are at a relatively good level. We are making some focused reductions in expenses where that doesn’t impact the progress of our technology or our commercial capability. We — also from just an OpEx and kind of GAAP earnings is not the same as cash flow. And we have still seen over the last several quarters that our cash flow has lagged behind what you would expect it to be, given the investments in inventory, both for Genesis and for the next-generation robot, we have bought the vast majority of the components and supply there for over a handful of Genesis Systems and a handful of the next-generation robot and so a lot of that spending has that been a drain on cash resources and kind of was done to reduce the risk of delays and reduce the risk of the supply chain and kind of we will continue to spend money on both of those products.
