The periprocedural management of patients on chronic oral anti‐coagulant therapy (OAC)—including Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) such as warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban—is a common clinical problem. 1, 2 Both OAC‐specific factors as well as patient‐and surgery‐specific risk factors for bleeding and thromboembolism (TE) should be assessed and risk stratified in any periprocedural anticoagulant management strategy. 2‐5 Procedural bleed risk an‐chors decisions as to whether anticoagulants need to be interrupted and, if anticoagulant interruption is deemed necessary, the timing of perioperative interruption and resumption. 3, 6 Patient‐specific TE risk anchors decisions of whether an aggressive periprocedural antithrombotic approach such as bridging therapy with treatment doses of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low‐molecular‐weight‐heparin (LMWH), typically during VKA interruption, would be used with the intention of preventing perioperative cardioembolic TE in high‐risk patients. 2, 4, 7 Recent systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, and guid‐ance statements on the topic found a lack of uniform definitions of procedural/surgical bleed risk and patient‐specific TE risk, identify‐ing a need to apply a standardized risk stratification approach. 2, 6‐11 Thus, the aim of adopting a standardized periprocedural classifica‐tion of procedural/surgical bleed risk and patient‐specific TE risk