I suspected AHZs approach was slightly different to others in the market, most other valve producers could not use the same formed tissue for SAVR and TAVR, (to my limited knowledge), it would be two entirely different devices.
I agree this is a good approach and likely to accelerate development however I'm not sure we can make the claim that the data from AHZ SAVR will be the same as the data from AHZ TAVR. I need to do a fair bit more reading however I believe equivalent orifice, pressure gradient/ regurg are all important variables and I'm not sure these will behave exactly the same for the SAVR tissue vs the TAVR which has the addition of the mounting cage etc.
I see a similar argument regarding calcification however in this case the tissue alone may be a good measure of performance/superiority (not sure calcification of the mounting portion of the device is as big an issue).
Agree a potential partnership deal after initial results /feedback of the trial makes sense.
Thanks again, this dialogue is helping me get a better feel for an appropriate valuation. Thinking out loud we are now probably talking about a single cap raise to get through to that partnership deal and one would hope there would be a path to cash flow positive or full acquisition from there. That said if the raise isn't large enough AHZ could be seen as desperate yet again come the time trial results are published... hmm much to consider
AHZ Price at posting:
7.4¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)