OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare interrupted and uninterrupted oral anticoagulant therapy (I-OAC vs. U-OAC) in patients on OAC undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND There is a paucity of data regarding the optimal peri-procedural management of OAC-treated patients. METHODS In the SWEDEHEART registry, all patients on OAC who were admitted acutely and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary angiography with a diagnostic procedure, from 2005 to 2017, were included. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and bleeds at 120 days. Propensity score was used to adjust for the nonrandomized treatment selection. RESULTS The study included 6,485 patients: 3,322 in the I-OAC group and 3,163 in the U-OAC group. The cumulative incidence of MACCE was 8.2% (269 events) versus 8.2% (254 events) in the I-OAC and the U-OAC groups, respectively. The adjusted risk for MACCE did not differ between the groups (I-OAC vs. U-OAC hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.12). Similarly, no difference was found in the risk for MACCE or bleeds (12.6% vs. 12.9%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.07). The risk for major or minor in-hospital bleeds did not differ between the groups. However, U-OAC was associated with a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization: 4 (3 to 7) days versus 5 (3 to 8) days; p < 0.01. CONCLUSIONS I-OAC and U-OAC were associated with equivalent risk for MACCE and bleeding complications. An U-OAC strategy was associated with shorter length of hospitalization. These data support U-OAC as the preferable strategy in patients on OAC undergoing coronary intervention. (c) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.