TD Cowen 46th Annual Health Care Conference

Mar 2, 2026

Devices research team, we are in the last session of the first morning of the 46th annual TD Cowen Healthcare Conference. We are fortunate to have executives from PROCEPT BioRobotics, CEO Reza Zadno to my right, your left, and CFO Kevin Waters. Gentlemen, thanks for joining us today. It was a busy week last week for you guys. You had earnings, you had Investor Day, you guys laid out a lot of intel on fourth quarter dynamics and 2026 guidance, which we thought was very helpful. I think on the thrust of this conversation, want to focus on the go forward. I think some of the Just maybe to start with just some of the questions that we've gotten from investors just around 1Q guidance and then 2026 guidance and the back half waiting and maybe just start on 1Q. Just on the procedure volume expectation. You've kind of already run through this last week, but just to give it one more review, maybe just talk about why the procedure volume guidance is the, is the right place for Q1 and, any intra-quarter trends you're willing to share so far? Yeah. Well, we're not gonna talk a lot about stuff inter quarter, as I think you guys would expect, but we certainly expect the procedures to build through the course of the year. We talked about in Q4 or on the call rather, that we made a lot of changes to our sales force. We think those are just really foundational, no regrets decisions to make in terms of really getting a launch team focused, which meant we redirected some of our more tenured people onto launch teams. We also reorganized where we have a region, leader over all the regions now, and all the clinical resources and sales resources report up to that common leader. It meant that people have new territories, they have new accounts that they're calling on, and so it just takes a little time for those relationships to build, and we have to backfill for our more tenured people. The benefits to that are gonna be, we think we're gonna drive a lot more effective launches. The pilots we ran last year, we saw the launches go from the metric of PO to first 10 cases. That went in half. If we can make our new system placements more productive faster and pull all those forward, we think that's just a big benefit for us. The other thing is now the utilization team is only focused on their same store sales, and they're only focused on their existing accounts. They're not distracted by launches. That does create near term headwinds, and we factored that all in the guidance, but we expect it to pay dividends for us in the back half of the year. Great. Just on the handpiece inventory optimization, that occurred in the fourth quarter and where you guys stand today, I think you were historically running around the past couple years, around 115% on inventory versus procedure volumes and are closer to 1 to 1 now. Any more details you can share just on where that stands in Q1? My understanding is it's very close to 1 to 1 and then that how that should be maintained over the course of the year. I know that that's what you've guided to in the procedure- Yeah ... volume forecast, but, maybe just share with us some of the nuances of the dynamics as we move through the year. Yeah ... inventory versus procedure volumes. One of the things that we saw historically is because the incentives were all built into the last quarter of the month, people would tend to drive their inventory very high, and then they would consume it the first two months of the next quarter. You know, our sales were always softest in the first two months, and then they would pick up again when people the stocking dynamic would play itself back out. What we've seen to date now is because of, you know, in fourth quarter, handpiece sales were only 77% of procedures. What we've seen in the first two months now, is we're seeing handpiece sales and procedures flying much more closely in formation, which supports that we think people have kind of reached that inventory equilibrium, and now they're just ordering to replenish their supply. There's nothing in the system, no incentive to do anything other than just replenish your supply. Even, even with that, if you know, I think there's a lot of people who are like, "But what if there was some more destocking? What would that look like?" Here's what everybody needs to remember is we're modeling it at a 1-to-1, but we're still gonna place 200-plus new systems into the installed base this year, and all of those systems are gonna have to take inventory. If people have really reached their inventory equilibrium and we add those 200 systems and they all come with inventory, then we'd have to be above the 1-to-1 ratio, just to account for all that inventory. The guidance that we provided would still allow for some additional destocking, but I think there's more upside to that revenue number right now than there is the downside. Understood. Just on the topic of just inventory in the field that's remaining and procedure volume, I guess, tracking. I mean, my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, every procedure that's done on a HYDROS or AquaBeam system, I mean, that kind of gets registered. Those data are going up to the cloud, you have information on every single procedure. On the inventory side, I mean, is there some buffer? I mean, do you guys have kind of exact numbers on inventory at each account, or how does that all work, the mechanics behind it? Well, we have a person in every case today. That won't be something we'll do forever, but it is something that we have today. Because we have a person in every case, we have perfect metrics. Our HYDROS system does have connectivity capabilities to it. As those get all connected to the cloud, we'll be able to collect procedure volume that way. We will, over time, move to more of a hybrid support model, where we'll still support a number of cases, and certainly if somebody would like us to be there for a difficult case, you know, we wanna provide great support and make sure patients get great outcomes. We also want sites to be able to perform cases independently. If a case comes up on a random day and they wanna be able to do it, we don't want them, you know, trying to track us down or worse, flip the patient to some other procedure. We'll do all those things. We know how much inventory is at every account. You know, there was a time when we thought, you know, that inventory level was probably high, this whole discounting issue aside, completely separate issue. On the Q3 call, we were like, "Hey, we wanna establish par levels for our sites and maybe sort of rightsize that inventory." That's where that 1,000 unit came from that we talked about. I still think directionally that was right in terms of if we were trying to target people to around 12 weeks worth of inventory. What we saw was centers' natural inventory equilibrium was much lower if there wasn't some incentive for them to carry more inventory, and that's the impact that we saw in Q4. I think that's largely rightsized now, and I think it's supported by the first two months of this year, and, you know, that's what's built into our guidance. Okay. You mentioned the launch team structure that's been established last week and prior on the third quarter call and publicly. May just review, you know, how many handpieces are typically bought at the time of installation or in the relative period around purchase and installation of a HYDROS. You know, the signals that you've shared some of the signals on positive signals about the launch team, as you mentioned earlier, just getting those first 10 cases and 50% reduction of the time it takes to get there. Anything just to share how has that been ongoing, and how has that evolved since you started the launch team? Has that metric improved on the course, I mean, how confident are you that this launch team strategy is gonna help reduce the dilution of new systems placements to overall system utilization? The amount of handpiece that somebody takes as a stocking order is highly variable. Some hospital systems take more, some hospital systems take less. The capital purchase process is completely separate from the consumable purchase process, we're dealing with two different groups, sometimes they can be pretty disconnected. One of the benefits we get from the launch team, the capital team has really good insight to when the PO's gonna close 'cause they'll be working on these deals for months at a time. When we get where we're like four or six weeks away from the PO closing, that's when we can start working on the PO for the handpieces, however many they wanna take. It's also where we start working with whoever the surgeon's gonna be, make sure there's a surgeon champion, somebody ready to take the instrument. Where's it gonna go in the hospital? Where's it gonna be stored? Where's it, you know, is the power right for the room? All those sorta logistical things to get done. Let's make sure we have cases ready to go. Let's make sure we have patients screened. Let's make sure we get in a steady cadence, so we come and do the training. We engage the learning curve as quickly as possible. Those are all things that the launch team does. I would say, you know, in the early days of the company when they were selling a robot, there was probably already a surgeon champion who was sitting there yelling at administration all the time, "Sign the PO. I want the robot. I can't wait to have it." The launches sort of took care of themselves, and it really wasn't much of a thing that we had to do. As the company's matured and you're going out into a different installed base, if you're working with a big IDN, they might just be sitting there saying, "Hey, you know what? We want 3 more robots. These are centers we want to offer the therapy to, so just go put it out there." There may not even be a surgeon champion identified. You know, there were times that we would close a PO, and we'd call the utilization team, and they're like, "We didn't even know a robot was coming." That would be the start of the process to identify the champion and get it trained. We would... I mean, there was times that robots would sit for a quarter, sometimes two quarters, before they would even get installed or get utilized because there wasn't a playbook in place. Some of our systems launched great, but there wasn't a playbook, and there wasn't a standardization to it. When I launched TAVR in the U.S., we ran a very standardized playbook. We screened five cases. We had a proctor teed up ready to go. We did two cases. We came back the next week. We did two cases, we just got in that steady cadence. My history was always, if you launch somebody well, they started out well, they had great experience, and they did this, they tended to stay well, and they tend to stay healthy. If somebody launched poorly, then at some point you almost had to come back and do a reboot and a restart from scratch. I've really prioritized the launch teams because I wanna make sure every new system we place launches well, launches healthy, stays healthy, and then, you know, and then we can start going back and working on some of the systems that are underperforming and get those back up to speed. Great. Is there anything left in this initiative to put a launch team in place, or just the commercial restructuring, I guess, of the strategy? Yeah. Just as has it all been, like, launched throughout every region in the United States, or is there still more work to go? I guess the question really trying to get the gist of is, I think you've implied that most of the work is done. We're in Q1. You guys are kind of ramping with this new strategy. Yeah. We're just curious if there's more work to do. Strategically, we've lined up on the strategy, and that part is done. We rolled out the new org structures and all the new roles and responsibilities at the sales meeting in January. All of that work is done. We couldn't go from having no launch teams to launching 200 systems all at the same time. You know, I think our goal this year is that half or a little more than half launch under our launch team model for this year. By the end of the year, we're fully capable that everything on a go forward would be under our launch team. That's what we've modeled. I will say we're putting, you know, a lot of pressure on the launch teams to figure out how to accelerate this. We think it's such a value driver for us. Part of it is just having enough tenured people that can do this, and if we don't have good experienced people doing the launches, then we're just gonna get more of the same that we had before. It really is about launch excellence, but we are building out and expanding those capabilities as we go. We just started launching them last month, and so far I'm super impressed with the launch team. I'm really impressed with how far that's gone, and I think we're all committed that this is the right structure on a go forward. Can you talk, I think you referenced this and maybe given details on it, but just the changes to the incentive plans for the maybe capital and clinical teams, how that you think is going to help just increase the intensity of focus on procedure volume growth as we move through 2026 and get into the out years? Yeah, I think the capital team, other than the launch aspect of it, the capital team it hasn't changed all that much. I think our capital process was pretty well refined, actually. I think that's not where we had our biggest challenges. Our bigger challenge is on the utilization team, and part of it was they were responsible for trying to drive same-store sales, but they were also responsible for the new launches. One of the things that we dissected out of that is, if you got a couple of new systems launched in your territory, you could just live off the growth of those systems, and you didn't really have to grow your existing base, and you could hit your quota and you could hit your plan. Now by moving those out and moving them out of the launch team, the only way that the core procedure team can make their numbers is by growing same-store sales and driving that. The other thing is we cleaned up the comp plan. There was just some things in there that were more behavioral-based, stacking cases, making us more efficient in doing that. We just sort of simplified it and ripped all that out. It's just now based on productivity, not behaviors. Are you driving the number that you need to do? If you are, then you're going to get paid. If you don't, then you won't. I think that simplification will drive the level of performance that we want. How's the internal feedback been from the sales team? Just are they enthusiastic about these changes? Are they on board? Has there been any disruption? I think you've already stated last week that the attrition levels have been really stable, but love to get an update there too. Yeah. We haven't seen a lot of attrition. I will say, look, at the sales meeting, there was a tremendous amount of enthusiasm. I think the idea of having a regional director that has all the resources report in, it just solves a lot of organizational disconnects, and it solves a lot of problems. You know, look, it's easy for everybody to be excited at the sales meeting, now we have to go execute. We are asking people to do different things. There were people on our team that they pretty much what they did was focused on being in the OR and supporting cases and spending their time with a clinician. We're now asking them, build a relationship with a scheduler, make sure you know what patients are coming into the funnel, what other surgeons are doing procedures at this hospital, and, you know, do they need to be trained on the system. These are just a lot of different skill sets. You know, we're gonna coach people up, and we're gonna do everything we can to make sure that, you know, they have the tools and the things that they need. You know, there's always some people that don't wanna come to the new world. If, if they don't wanna come to the new world, then, you know, that's fine, but they can't stay. You know, that's not our goal, but we're gonna have a very high accountability culture. You know, that's just the way. So far, everybody's been really excited. We haven't seen any attrition, but now we have to execute, and people have to deliver. Can you share some of the feedback from your high volume centers that we're relying or just taking advantage of the end of quarter bulk discounts? I mean, it sounds like they're all relatively content at least with just the sale price going away, and they've always digested the ASP that is now fully in play. Has there been any friction at all or is it just? Yeah. I'm sure there's some level of friction, but it sounds like it's just been minor to date. Yeah. I mean, here's the dynamic. We didn't raise anybody's price. Everybody had a contracted price, and if their price was $3,500 in their contract, that's what they're expected to pay. That's what's built into their budget. That's their contracted price. What we were doing is going in, where they were coming to us and saying, "Hey, if I bought 30 hand pieces, you know, could I get 7% off? Could I get a deal?" You know, somebody would say, "Yeah, sure." I think a little bit of the mindset was, you know, if they're taking all these procedures, maybe they're planning on utilization spiking. Like, let's put these things in here. If we do that at a discount, you know. I mean, volume-based discounts are something that exists in every business at one level or another. I think if it would've been driving procedure growth, we probably wouldn't have discontinued the practice. I don't think it was driving procedure growth. I think it was driving inventory patterns, that's not gonna drive the overall health of our business. We eliminated that. Nobody's paying a higher price. They're just not getting a discount. They're just back to their contracted price. We didn't have to go renegotiate anybody's contract. We didn't have to redo anything. We're just holding people accountable to the price that they agreed to pay in the first place. That's very different than, you know, you know me well from Edwards, when we launched our S3 UR platform, we put a $1,500 price increase out there. We had to go recontract everybody. We had to sell them on the value of the system. We had to do all that. We didn't do any of that in this case. People are just back to their contracted price. Wanted to touch on some reimbursement dynamics. I mean, firstly, I think on one of the slides in your Investor Day references reimbursement support as a part of the new commercial strategy. I mean, you guys have had reimbursement support in play historically, but is there anything new that you guys are offering? I. On top of that, just with the Category I code now in place and just, I guess, removing any concerns around, you know, denied reimbursement or just improve confidence, is there any part of that that's been incorporated into the reimbursement strategy? Yeah. I. support strategy. Excuse me. It's not anything new, Josh, we've always supported our customers with reimbursement. The, the big event this year was moving from Category 3 to Category 1. With that, we just wanna make sure that coding is being done properly. We wanna make sure that the reimbursement that our physicians are expecting, they're getting. It, it's more in that vein. The blocking and tackling, though, has been handled. I mean, in terms of now having a Category 1 code. Our APC level went up another 5% this year. Really no issues there. It's just making sure that customers are doing things appropriately to avoid any issues on the back end. Okay. would love to touch on just some capital trends. You guys, capital revenue, system revenue, $95 million-$100 million for 2026. It's raised record quarter in system placements in Q4. just help us review the, you know, what's baked in and some of the assumptions to get you to this range and kind of flattish system placements. Anything, I mean, I think you reviewed this as well last week, but just to. No. To help us- Yeah. Fully understand. We modeled system placements to be about the same in 2026 as they were in 2025 for our greenfield placements. We think that's a right number for us to land on. We think pricing's gonna be in line or maybe a little bit up from what we had in 2025. The other two things that were layered on this is the first one is we're gonna start a process for developing a replacement strategy. I think historically, you know, the company thought that customers would just reach a natural replacement, you know, time point where they'd wanna upgrade to the new system, and they'd wanna do those things. We didn't really see that happen organically. I think we're gonna have to be much more purposeful about it. This is where I think we can offer customers trade-in credits for their existing system. We can upgrade them to a HYDROS. It's, you know, it's our latest technology. It's much more feature-rich and, I think it also gives them a much cleaner pathway to kind of this hybrid support model where we don't have to be in every case. So we're gonna start that. I don't think it's gonna be a lot of systems, but there will be some systems we place under this model. I think the revenue that we get from those will probably be, you know, with the trade-in credit, probably about 70% of the revenue we would get for a greenfield placement. So we'll model that out. I don't think that's gonna be a big part of our 2026 story. I think as you get to 2027 and 2028, we do need to have a strategy to upgrade all of the AquaBeam systems to HYDROS, because at some point, we're gonna have to sunset support over the AquaBeam system. If I take these in on a trade-in, I can use them for spares, I can do some refurbishment stuff with them, so we can get some value out of them as well. That's really the plan. The third element is we are gonna explore some operational leases, I don't think it's gonna be a big part of our plan in 2026, we really wanna get this process played out to where we can work out financial arrangements for a hospital that can't make the capital purchase or doesn't wanna make the capital purchase, but wants the system and wants the technology available. How do we create a lease structure that financially works for them, but more importantly, financially works for us? We can pull that volume through at places that maybe otherwise wouldn't have the technology available. Those are things we're going to explore. These are things that this is largely a build year for us this year, building some of these capabilities, but I think they're gonna be things that are gonna be much more important to us in 27 and 28. We don't wanna wait until those things are critical. We wanna be able to pilot them now and get them right so that when they do become more important, that we have a well-run system for doing it. I mean, is there a timeline just in terms of the AquaBeam system lifespan? I mean, when could it fully become dysfunctional or there's any maybe technology kind of obsolescence on your side or parts or service, or you just, you don't, you can't service them anymore? Can they last out to 10 years or is it more this five to seven-year typical capital lifespan? They definitely have a useful life that could go greater than the 5 years that we would forecast with an account. Ultimately, we will have an end-of-life strategy for AquaBeam, but that's not in the near term. If you look at the install base of AquaBeam, there are about 200 systems out there at the end of 2022. When we run pro formas with our hospital customers, they're thinking of that system somewhere in the 5-year useful life. That is when Larry alludes to 2027 and 2028, it really does line up nicely with when we had a bolus of AquaBeams being installed. 2026 is all about building that muscle so we could capitalize in 2027 and 2028. I'm assuming part of the strategy of kind of catalyzing that replacement cycle kicking in is just trumpeting the merits of HYDROS over AquaBeam and the advancements and enhancements. No, that's a big part of the replacement strategy, though, in addition to the revenue that we get from that. It is upgrading people, but it gives us an opportunity to relaunch all of these counts. By 27, when we're launching everything under a, under a launch model, it gives us a chance to take a much more feature-rich system in, but do it under the launch model, and we think that that's gonna pay dividends for us as well. Just thinking about HYDROS, have you seen increased utilization per system with HYDROS versus AquaBeam, and what's driving that? I think some of the procedural efficiencies are baked in, you know, preoperative planning, et cetera. Yeah. We do see higher utilization on HYDROS than we do with our legacy AquaBeam systems. You know, utilization is there's a wide spectrum of utilization there, but if you just average it all out, we do see higher utilization with HYDROS. I think it's just, it's just such an easier system to use. It's an all integrated system. I just think it's just, it just drives more procedures. We heard about, during the IPO process from the management team prior to your tenure, Larry, about this opportunity to bring patients off the sidelines or patients that are failing meds or just suffering in silence. It sounds like you have some renewed enthusiasm I mean, it's not renewed, but you have some enthusiasm around ultimately, allowing patients to access a BPH intervention that's safe and durable. A great safety profile and durability. Maybe just how are you thinking about it? I mean, you discussed this again last week, how should we think about the timelines in terms of PROCEPT's efforts to really see that impact BPH procedure volumes? Sure. Well, first of all, the number one thing that we're focused on is converting competitive procedures to our procedure in the space, where there's about 400,000 patients a year that they get a procedure, and we're only about 10% penetrated in that in 2025. The first thing we need to do is convert all those other procedures over to our procedures, and that's what's gonna drive our growth over the next couple of years. There's ahead of that 400,000 funnel, there's 8 million men that are taking drug therapy for BPH, and about 1.1 million men a year stop taking their drug therapy because it's not effective or they don't like the side effects. Those are patients that we think would be ripe for having a procedure done because they've obviously sought therapy. That's, you know, the next tranche of patients to go after would be that 1.1 million who have stopped taking their drug medication. I think those are people that we should be able to get into the procedure. The problem that we have right now is just perception of men of what having a procedure on their prostate means. Most men go immediately to, "If I have this procedure, it's gonna mess with my erectile function, and it's gonna mess with my incontinence, and I don't wanna lose urinary control, and I certainly don't wanna lose sexual function." We're not talking about people who are elderly. We're talking about men in their fifties and sixties, these are obviously critically important to them. I think we have so much work to do from a marketing side, this is for all the segments that says, "We can offer you a procedure with virtually no incontinence rate and very low ED rates and incredibly low better than any other procedure that you could have done, we can give you complete relief of your symptoms that will be durable." You know, the first order of business that we have to do is making sure men with this condition understand what their true options are. Right now, you know, if you look, their choice is have a resective procedure that will solve my symptoms, but it's gonna leave me with very high rates of side effects and complications I don't want, or I can have a procedure that will preserve those things, but it doesn't work very well, and I'll need another procedure in one year, two years, three years. That's just not a very attractive option for patients. We need to make our case for that, but it really is in all the segments. It's not just getting people off the sidelines. Understood. Understood. Excuse me. The, I wanted to touch on indication expansion in localized prostate cancer. The 001 trial, it showed 3 and 6-month results, for the majority of the patients enrolled. You know, it looks compelling to us, and when can we see full results, and could that be as early as this year? Yeah. No. The big trial for us is the randomized trial WATER IV. WATER IV will complete enrollment about the middle of this year. It has a six-month endpoint. We would expect that data to be presented at AUA, I think it's in May next year. That's gonna be the place where we see the data. You know, I don't wanna get people focused on prostate cancer because I think whenever we talk about it, we run the risk that people think we're only focused on that because the BPH, you know, train has ended, and that's not even close to true. We're only 10% penetrated. The reason the cancer opportunity is so exciting is for what it can do for patients. you know, the data that was presented, you know, we talked about it at our analyst day, but men who undergo a radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer have, it's almost assured you're gonna have severe ED, but it's also about a 25%-30% chance you're gonna have incontinence. The fastest-growing segment of prostate cancer treatment is watchful waiting. it's just men who've been diagnosed, they have cancer in their system, and they just would rather do nothing than live with those complications, and their view is, you know, "I just pray every day that I'm a slow progressor," which many men are slow progressors, and so that would be okay, but there's men who are not as well. I think if men had a chance to get a procedure that had a zero rate of incontinence and our erectile dysfunction actually numerically in the feasibility trial improved, they could get the cancer out of their body, I think that's a hugely compelling case. I think the other thing that's very rare in our space is it's rare to have an opportunity that's as significant as prostate cancer that 100% leverages exactly what we have. It uses the same exact robot, it uses the same exact handpiece, uses our same channel to an overwhelmingly large degree, probably 95%. We might have to add some oncology practices we don't call on today, you never get that kind of opportunity with this kind of leverage. It's very rare. That's another thing that just makes it really attractive to us. Outside of the prostate cancer indication, you know, going back to resected BPH and just the penetration, surgeon penetration so far, I believe there's roughly 1,300 Aquablation urologists out there, maybe 10% penetrated just in terms of urologists. Not all urologists do resected BPH. What's the plan to, I think you do have a plan, but maybe some more details around it to just increase awareness of the clinical data, the durability, the? Yeah ... safety event profile, to the urologists that are not adopters today. Well, there's the not adopters, but there's even the people that have it available. I think there's a hierarchy that a lot of clinicians have in their mind, which is least invasive to per se more invasive. They'll start with, "Okay, I'll start with drugs," and I think we all get that. I'd take a pill before I'd go have a surgical procedure, so I think everybody gets that. It's like, okay, the medicines aren't working, so now I need to have a procedure. They're like, "Well, a non-resective procedure is less invasive in my mind than a resective procedure, so maybe I'll start with a UroLift or I'll start with one of these other procedures," or maybe even they'll do a second UroLift. If that doesn't work and the patient comes back after one year, two years, three years, then maybe then I'll move to an Aquablation or I'll do something like this. It makes perfect sense to a doctor that I might do four or five procedures in this patient, and that's fine. It makes no sense to a patient. When we did the patient-centric research, patients, their number one thing is they wanna maintain their urinary control. The number two thing is they want, they want a one-and-done procedure. They want to minimize the risk of having another procedure, and then it's preserving their sexual function, and then it's recovery time and doing all those sorts of things, and those are sort of the four things on their hierarchy. This less invasive, more invasive thing, once a 24 French device go through your urethra, tell me how one procedure feels less invasive than another procedure when you're doing the same access. You know, it just doesn't make any sense from a patient lens. When we presented that, we had a meeting with all of our, you know, a lot of our key opinion leaders. They were shocked by the patient-centric research. They'd never seen it before. They just assumed what they were doing was in line with what a patient wanted. I think the number of times that anybody should have a 24 French device through their urethra is 0 to 1. If you're gonna have it done, you need to know that that's gonna be a durable procedure, and you don't have to have anything else done again. That's just not the lens that patients are getting treated through today, and we need to make our case for that. You know, from a marketing standpoint, all the success that the company's had, and they had tremendous success before I got here, but all the success they had was just putting instruments in places and having physicians adopt it into their practice and driving procedures. That's what's driven all of this. There was no marketing program. We surveyed patients with BPH, and between 1% and 2% of patients had ever heard of Aquablation. Patients aren't coming into hospitals. They're not asking for this by name. They're not doing any of these sorts of things. You know, in the early days of TAVR, we struggled with this. Patients would show up at a hospital and they'd say, you know, the doctor would just say, "Let me tell you about open heart surgery," and they would just go, and they didn't even know that TAVR even existed. Even today, there's a lot of patients that don't know that it exists as an option for them, and they don't pursue therapy because they don't wanna have a sternotomy. I think there's a huge opportunity for us to do just patient awareness and education for patients that are already committed to having a procedure. Remember, we're only 10% penetrated in 400,000 patients that are already committed to having a procedure and that are willing to undergo a surgical intervention. That's the first place we gotta go and convert people to what's gonna be ultimately a much better procedure for them. Well, it sounds like it's gonna be an exciting year. We're looking forward to tracking along and procedure growth, trends are gonna be a main focus, and sounds like you guys are on track to deliver. Thank you guys for spending time with us today. Good luck on the rest of your meetings this afternoon, and great to see you. Great. Thank you.