I don't understand how they are spending 12.3m in operating...

I don't understand how they are spending 12.3m in operating costs (corporate and staff) in a single quarter. That figure is excluding R&D costs.

I understand that preparing for FDA submissions is a long an expensive process, but their costs don't seem to line with other medical technology companies that are at a similar stage.

I know it's a completely different company and comparison, but EMV is also listed on the ASX and are in the medical device space. They are in the hundreds of millions of market cap (slightly lower than AVR but similar enough)

Their administrative and corporate costs are $500,000. So that's 0.5m compared with 4.5m. Their staff costs include R&D staff and they're 1.67m per quarter compared to AVR's 7.8m.

I would assume developing TAVR products to be more expensive (as a whole) compared to developing products/devices to diagnose stroke, but the latter isn't exactly simple or cheap either! It leads to be understood why AVR made the pivot when they never successfully monetised their tissue products properly.

Another comparison (although a drug development company - not as comparable) is the ASX200 listed NEU who had 2.33m Corporate and Administrative costs for the entire first half and turned a profit. That's 1.1m per quarter compared to AVR's 4.5m in similar periods. Even their R&D costs (17m for 2 quarters, or 8.5m per quarter) are lower despite running 3 trials Phase 2 drug trials, and preparing for a third (which is a phase 3) including paying for the manufacturing of the drug, pharmacology studies, animal studies/other pre-clinical activities)...