Thank you, Kathy. Next slide, please. And good afternoon to everyone on the call today. In the next few minutes, I will review the current state of our clinical and regulatory activities for the upcoming submissions to regulators in U.S. and Canada that will hopefully provide you the necessary visibility into our efforts to make DrugSorb-ATR available to North American health care providers. First, I would like to remind everyone that DrugSorb-ATR is a breakthrough device. In fact, the FDA has granted 2 separate breakthrough designations for DrugSorb-ATR. First, for the removal of ticagrelor in patients undergoing urgent or emergent surgery. And the second one for the removal of the 2 market-leading anticoagulants, apixaban or Eliquis and rivaroxaban or Xarelto, for the same intended applications. We believe that having breakthrough status is an important component of the DrugSorb-ATR regulatory strategy, and let me explain why. First, the breakthrough program is specifically designed to provide timely access of novel devices addressing large unmet medical needs by speeding up both the development and the review phases of the process. The required criteria for a breakthrough device designation are listed on this slide. The first criteria is that the device provides for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions. For the second criteria, the device must meet at least one of the following considerations: that it represents a breakthrough technology, that there are no approved or cleared alternatives, that it offers significant advantages over existing approved or cleared alternatives, and that the device availability is in the best interest of patients. Since 2015, the FDA has granted breakthrough device designation status to 192 cardiovascular and 83 GI and urology devices or diagnostics. This is relevant because the intended target population for DrugSorb-ATR are cardiovascular patients, and GI urology will be the FDA review brands for our submissions. Finally, at breakthrough designation submissions undergo priority review and need to meet the FDA rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness. Next slide, please. As we have stated in our press release, and you just heard from our CEO, Dr. Phil Chan, the STAR-T results were recently presented at AATS and were also reviewed during our recent webinar, Key Opinion Leader and Analyst Investor Day by study principal investigator, Dr. Michael Mack. I urge you to listen to the webinar replay, that you can find on the link provided to you, that has presentations by all 3 STAR-T principal investigators and also an overview of the increasing adoption of antithrombotic removal in European cardiac surgical practice by the STAR Registry presented by Dr. Michael Schmoeckel. Let's now review the highlights of the STAR-T results. First of all, the study matrix. There were 140 subjects randomized in the study. However, 8 of these subjects did not receive a study device, and therefore, the overall population comprises of 132 subjects. Among them, 92% underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, or CABG surgery while 8% under what other types of cardiac operations. The enrollment was split approximately 2/3 of the subjects came from United States investigative sites and approximately 1/3 from Canadian investigative sites. The study protocol was well executed with less than 10% of study subjects experiencing a major protocol deviation. Finally, study follow-up was 100% complete with 0 patients lost to follow-up. Reviewing the safety in the overall population, the primary endpoint of the -- the primary safety endpoint of the study was met as evidenced by 3 separate independent data safety monitoring board reviews that occurred after 40, 80 and 140 patients who were entering the trial. In each one of those reviews, the DSMB recommended continuation of the study and voiced no concerns around safety. Overall, adverse events were balanced between the device and the control arms in the trial. There were 0 device-related serious adverse events reported. There were 0 unanticipated device adverse events reported, and there were 0 device-related adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study. Turning now to efficacy. We assessed efficacy in the trial by looking postoperative bleeding. That was done via 2 composite endpoints that comprise of the universal definition of perioperative bleeding events and also by the chest tube drainage collected from each of the patients in the study. In addition, we executed an exploratory assessment of major bleeding. As Luke had reported previously, the primary composite endpoint in the overall population was not met. However, in the isolated CABG population among patients who did not have any major protocol deviations in the so-called isolated CABG protocol population, we observed the following finding. The prespecified composite endpoint that included both moderate and severe bleeding events, demonstrated a win ratio of 1.33. And for the audience, let me remind you that any win ratio above 1 suggests a treatment effect for the investigation in the device. However, that win ratio was not significant with a p-value of 0.202. The prespecified composite endpoint that only included severe bleeding events demonstrated a win ratio of 1.59, which was significant with a p-value of 0.041. Since the UDPB definition allows for events to be declared simply by transfusions, the principal investigators of the study wanted to ensure that only clinical bleeding events were included in the analysis and therefore, performance sensitivity, blinded review of the events where they identified a number of cases that were included in the original analysis simply on the basis of transfusions, but without any evidence of clinical bleeding. The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown at the bottom of the table where now the composite endpoint that includes the moderate or severe bleeding event has a win ratio of 1.65, which is also significant with a p-value of 0.026. You will note that the composite-only includes severe events was not impacted by the sensitivity analysis since all severe events would deem to be clinically meaningful events relating to significant bleeding. Finally, the exploratory major bleeding analysis looked at the total of major events that these subjects suffered either according to the UDPB definition or according to chest tube drainage by accounting for patients that ended up with more than 1 liter of blood in the chest tubes that are placed in the chest after surgery. What we saw that there were 3 major UDPB events in the DrugSorb arm, while there were 9 in the control arm. And when it comes to major chest tube drainage bleeds over a liter there were none of those noted in the DrugSorb arm, there were 4 additional in the control arm for a total of 3 events with the DrugSorb and 13 in the control arm. That translated to rates of 6% versus 22% between the 2 arms, which was significant with a p-value of 0.028. The number needed to treat, to prevent the major bleed in the trial according to this exploratory analysis was 6. Otherwise said, for every 6 patients treated, there was 1 major bleeding event averted. Next slide, please. With STAR-T data available, we have worked closely with both internal and external regulatory experts to formulate our regulatory strategy leading up to submissions. Included on the top of the slide is a direct quote from one of our senior regulatory experts, Mr. Mark DuVal, J.D., President and CEO of DuVal & Associates. To state, "we have been working with CytoSorbents for the development of the regulatory strategy for the DrugSorb-ATR device. Based on the data the company has shared with us and the extensive experience we have in preparation of de novo submissions. It is our opinion this device is appropriate for the de novo pathway." More specifically, the de novo pathway is for low to moderate risk devices for which special controls, for example, the availability of clinical data, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is no other approved predicate device. The de novo pathway puts heavy emphasis on the probable benefit and risk of the device in the intended population. Importantly, based on the priority review received by breakthrough devices, a recent analysis reported a 25% faster de novo application review times. Accordingly, we will be proceeding with parallel FDA de novo and health cannabis submissions in the third quarter of this year. And finally, FDA reviewed times for de novo applications are stated as 150 days. However, in the post-COVID era, such reviews are averaging approximately 1 year. Next slide, please. So to summarize, ticagrelor is an FDA-approved drug that's widely used as standard of care in the U.S. and Canada, but does compare an increased risk of severe perioperative bleeding for patients who require urgent surgical treatment. DrugSorb-ATR is an investigational device that has FDA breakthrough status for this application, highlighting the large unmet medical need and the lack of available alternatives. We believe that the STAR-T data inform the regulatory pathway by providing the necessary safety information; information on the proposed target intended population, which, in our case, will be CABG surgery; and information, the proposed indication for use, which would be for the reduction of bleeding severity. Based on the benefit to risk profile observed with STAR-T, regulatory experts recommend FDA submission for DrugSorb-ATR use in CABG surgery under the de novo pathway. And finally, pending FDA agreement of the de novo pathway, Breakthrough designation status is expected to facilitate the priority review with a potential FDA decision between 6 to 12 months following in Q3 submission. In parallel, we'll be also submitting to health care. And that concludes my prepared statements. And now I would like to turn it over back to Phil for his concluding remarks.