Cardiovascular Conditions Rating Guide

Heart and blood-vessel conditions share one framework under 38 CFR § 4.104. Most heart conditions are scored by how much physical exertion you can do before symptoms start, measured in a unit called METs. A weak heart, a bad valve, and coronary artery disease are read through the same handful of rules. Learn that metric once and you understand how your rating is set. This guide explains the shared rules, then points you to the detailed guide for your specific condition.

One-page guide: Cardiovascular Conditions Rating Guide in One Page Cardiovascular-system guide separating heart, artery, vein, rhythm, hypertension, and other rating methods, with symptoms, METs and objective evidence, service paths, and common claim gaps. Opens the full-size chart, free to save or print.

The Rules That Decide Every Cardiovascular Claim

Most heart codes are rated on workload: how much physical exertion you can do before heart symptoms begin. That workload is measured in METs, and two other measures sit alongside it. Learn these rules once and they apply across almost every heart condition in the schedule.

1. Most heart conditions are rated on workload in METs

METs stands for metabolic equivalents, the level of exertion at which shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain (angina), dizziness, or fainting begins. Light activity like walking slowly is a low number of METs; harder activity like climbing stairs quickly or heavy yard work is a higher number. The lower the METs level at which symptoms start, the higher the rating. A heart that produces symptoms with very little exertion is rated far higher than one that only struggles under heavy exertion.

2. Two alternate paths sit beside METs; ejection fraction is not one of them

The current general formula has two alternate paths at the lower levels: cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation confirmed by qualifying imaging supports 30 percent, and the need for continuous medication supports 10 percent. The heart's ejection fraction is clinically useful evidence of how the heart is doing, but it is not a percentage level in the current general formula; the old ejection-fraction and congestive-heart-failure-episode thresholds belong to the pre-November 14, 2021 schedule.

3. When exercise testing is not safe, a METs estimate is allowed (38 CFR 4.100)

Some veterans cannot safely complete an exercise stress test because of the severity of their heart condition or another medical reason. When that is the case, 38 CFR § 4.100 allows the examiner to record a medically-supported estimate of the METs level instead. A test that could not be done safely is not a reason to deny or lower a rating.

4. Hypertension is the exception, rated on blood-pressure readings

Hypertension (high blood pressure, DC 7101) is not rated on METs. It is rated on your diastolic and systolic pressure readings, the two numbers in a blood-pressure measurement. Because a single reading can be misleading, the rating requires blood pressure confirmed by readings on multiple days, not one measurement taken at a single visit.

5. Ischemic heart disease and hypertension are herbicide presumptives

Ischemic heart disease (reduced blood flow to the heart, which includes coronary artery disease) is on the VA's list of conditions presumptively linked to herbicide exposure, and hypertension is now on that list as well. Veterans with qualifying Agent Orange or other herbicide exposure do not have to prove the medical link for those specific conditions. The presumption covers the listed conditions only, not all heart disease. See the Agent Orange presumptive list and the PACT Act guide.

METs are central when the general formula applies, but they are not the only path. If your exam does not report a symptom-limited METs level (from a stress test or a documented estimate under 4.100), the main measurement of the general formula is missing. The alternate paths still exist, imaging-confirmed hypertrophy or dilatation and continuous medication, and codes like hypertension, arrhythmias, and vascular disease use their own diagnosis-specific criteria. For the exact rating table for your specific condition, open its guide or condition page below.

Choose the Cardiovascular Rating Lane Before Reading the METs

For most diseases of the heart, the current general formula asks at what workload heart-failure symptoms begin. It does not use the old ejection-fraction and congestive-heart-failure episode thresholds that appeared in the pre-November 14, 2021 schedule.

EvidenceHow the current formula uses it
Symptom-limited METsMain 100/60/30/10 path for most heart diseases
Cardiac hypertrophy or dilatationAlternate path to 30 percent when confirmed by qualifying imaging
Continuous medicationAlternate path to 10 percent
Ejection fractionClinically useful, but not a percentage level in the current general formula
Exercise test contraindicatedA medical examiner may estimate METs using specific activities that produce symptoms

The general formula is only one lane. Identify which lane the diagnosis is in before reading any single number:

Rating laneWhat controlsRecords that show it
General heart formulaWhat controlsSymptom-limited METs, qualifying hypertrophy or dilatation, and continuous medicationRecords that show itExercise METs test when appropriate, medically supported interview estimate when testing is contraindicated, imaging, medication history
HypertensionWhat controlsConfirmed blood-pressure history and the treatment or pressure findings named by DC 7101Records that show itSerial blood-pressure readings, diagnosis and medication history, clinician records
ArrhythmiaWhat controlsType, documented episodes or interventions, and device status under the exact codeRecords that show itElectrocardiogram, Holter or event monitor, electrophysiology and cardioversion or ablation records, implanted-device record
Arterial or vascular diseaseWhat controlsThe code-specific circulation, pressure, ischemia, aneurysm, or functional findingsRecords that show itVascular testing, imaging, examination, treatment and procedure history
Procedure, device, infection, or transplantWhat controlsActive state, admission or discharge date, device status, mandatory examination, and later residualsRecords that show itHospital and operative record, device card and follow-up, treatment-end date, post-treatment examination
A finding can prove a fact without selecting a rating. Ejection fraction, imaging, electrocardiogram findings, and a diagnosis each prove different things. Ejection fraction is clinically important but does not select a percentage level under the current general formula, which uses symptom-limited METs with alternate paths for qualifying hypertrophy or dilatation and for continuous medication. Other cardiovascular codes use their own criteria.

Not every cardiovascular code uses the general formula. Hypertension, arrhythmias, vascular disease, aneurysms, and some surgery and transplant periods have their own criteria; the code atlas below shows the exact code. And one heart condition is rated somewhere else entirely: 38 CFR § 4.104 directs VA to evaluate cor pulmonale, right-heart disease caused by lung disease, as part of the pulmonary condition that causes it, not as a separate secondary heart claim.

Heart Events, Devices, and Procedures Can Change the Rating Over Time

Several cardiovascular codes assign a total evaluation for a set period after an event or procedure, then move to a different question. The dates are what drive those transitions.

Event or treatmentCurrent schedule transition to explain
Myocardial infarctionCurrent schedule transition to explainTotal evaluation during and for three months after the infarction, then the general formula
Pacemaker implantationCurrent schedule transition to explainTotal evaluation for one month following hospital discharge, then the applicable formula or code
Implanted defibrillatorCurrent schedule transition to explainThe ventricular-arrhythmia code provides a total evaluation while an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is in place
Heart-valve replacementCurrent schedule transition to explainTotal evaluation through the specified post-admission period, a mandatory examination after discharge, then residual evaluation
Coronary bypass surgeryCurrent schedule transition to explainTotal evaluation for the code's post-admission period, then the general formula
Heart transplantCurrent schedule transition to explainTotal evaluation for at least one year, a mandatory examination, then residual evaluation with the code's minimum

The date that matters may be admission, discharge, implantation, treatment end, or the scheduled post-treatment examination, depending on the code. The operative report and the follow-up timeline can therefore be as important as the diagnosis label.

Not Every Heart Condition Uses the Same Service-Connection Route

Presumptions in this body system attach to named diseases, not to the cardiovascular system as a whole.

  • Herbicide presumption: ischemic heart disease and hypertension are on VA's herbicide-presumptive lists when the exposure and service requirements are met. Ischemic heart disease does not include hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, stroke, or every other heart diagnosis.
  • Chronic-disease presumption: listed cardiovascular-renal diseases may qualify when the requirements, including the applicable manifestation period, are met (see 38 CFR § 3.307 and § 3.309).
  • Direct: a current disease, an in-service disease, injury, or exposure, and a competent medical connection between them.
  • Secondary or aggravated: a current cardiovascular disability caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability or its treatment, with the required medical link and, for aggravation, the applicable baseline analysis.
  • Condition-specific rule: some former-prisoner-of-war, exposure, and treatment relationships use narrower rules. One presumption does not generalize to the whole cardiovascular system.

Find the Guide for Your Condition

The rules above apply across the board. For the exact rating table, the C&P exam, and the Board data for your specific condition, open the dedicated guide:

AreaGuideDC codes
Coronary artery diseaseCoronary Artery Disease Guide7005
HypertensionHypertension Guide7101
Cold injury residualsCold Injury Guide7122

For any code not listed, including arrhythmias, valve conditions, and vascular disease, open its condition lookup page for the rating levels and Board data.

Every Cardiovascular Diagnostic Code, With Board Outcomes

Every diagnostic code in this body system, ordered by how often it reaches the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Percentages are the share of each code's Board issues granted, denied, or remanded (sent back for more development); dismissed and other outcomes are not shown, so rows do not sum to 100%. Each code links to its full page: rating criteria, evidence notes, and secondary-condition data.

Show 12 more codes with too few Board appeals to report (expand)
DCConditionBoard appealsGrantedDeniedRemanded
7001Endocarditis, orToo few Board appeals to report
7003Pericardial adhesionsToo few Board appeals to report
7004Syphilitic heart diseaseToo few Board appeals to report
7008Hyperthyroid heart diseaseToo few Board appeals to report
7016Heart valve replacement (prosthesis)Too few Board appeals to report
7019Cardiac transplantationToo few Board appeals to report
7112Aneurysm, any small arteryToo few Board appeals to report
7113Arteriovenous fistula, traumaticToo few Board appeals to report
7115Thrombo-angiitis obliterans (Buerger's Disease)Too few Board appeals to report
7119ErythromelalgiaToo few Board appeals to report
7123Soft tissue sarcoma (of vascular origin)Too few Board appeals to report
7124Raynaud's disease (also known as primary Raynaud's)Too few Board appeals to report

Counts from RateMyVSO's index of published BVA decisions, refreshed weekly. A remand is not a loss; it means the Board needed more evidence before deciding. Descriptive of the published record, not a prediction for any claim.

Common Secondary Conditions

Heart and vascular conditions are closely tied to other service-connected conditions, both as a cause and as a result. These are common secondary-claim pairings:

  • Heart disease alongside diabetes or hypertension. Heart disease may be considered secondary to service-connected diabetes or high blood pressure when competent evidence establishes causation or aggravation in the individual record. Two diagnoses in the same file do not establish that link by themselves.
  • Hypertension alongside other conditions. High blood pressure may be considered secondary to a service-connected condition such as sleep apnea, kidney disease, or PTSD when competent evidence establishes causation or aggravation in the individual record.
  • The ischemic-heart-disease presumptive. For veterans with qualifying herbicide exposure, ischemic heart disease is presumptively service-connected, a direct path rather than a secondary one.
  • Mental health after a cardiac event. Depression or anxiety following a heart attack or living with chronic heart disease can be claimed as secondary to the physical condition.

See secondary conditions for how these links are established.

Records That Show What the Schedule Measures

What the file needs depends on the lane, and the dates matter as much as the findings:

  • Exact diagnosis and code lane: the specific cardiovascular diagnosis, so it is clear whether the general formula, a hypertension code, an arrhythmia code, a vascular code, or a procedure code applies.
  • Symptom-limited METs: an exercise test reporting the exertion level at which heart symptoms begin, or a medically supported interview estimate with the specific activities that produce symptoms when testing is contraindicated.
  • Imaging for hypertrophy or dilatation: an echocardiogram, multigated acquisition scan, or MRI, which is the alternate path to 30 percent. Ejection fraction remains useful clinical information but is not a rating threshold in the current general formula.
  • Rhythm and pressure records: electrocardiogram, Holter or event monitoring, ablation or cardioversion records for an arrhythmia, and serial blood-pressure readings where hypertension is claimed, since a single reading does not establish it.
  • Medication and procedure history: continuous medication as the alternate path to 10 percent, plus operative reports, device records, and the admission, discharge, and treatment-end dates that move a claim between rating states.
  • Ordinary functional impact: stairs, walking distance, carrying, sleep, and work limits described in everyday terms.

The matching DBQ prompts an examiner to capture the METs level, the imaging, and the medication history in the schedule's own terms.

Evidence Cited in Published Coronary artery disease Decisions

We analyzed 42,431 published Board decisions involving coronary artery disease for condition-specific evidence, counting only case-specific mentions (boilerplate recitations excluded). "Favorable" is the share of decisions citing that evidence where every issue was granted or the outcome was mixed; the baseline across all these decisions is 43.7%, combining every diagnostic code below. Evidence appearing in a decision does not mean it decided the case. Descriptive of the published record, not a prediction.

Bar length shows decisions citing the evidence.

Heart attack, stent, or bypass documented
13,440 decisions50.9% favorable
Stress test or echocardiogram in the record
8,729 decisions52.4% favorable
Ischemic heart disease herbicide presumption addressed
5,634 decisions60.1% favorable
Ejection fraction measured
5,293 decisions58.9% favorable
METs workload testing documented
4,561 decisions63.0% favorable

By diagnostic code

These codes are grouped together above. They do not perform the same, so find your own code here rather than reading the combined figure. A code retired in the schedule rewrites appears without a link, because its decisions were judged under criteria that no longer apply.

Bar length shows published decisions reviewed.

DC 7005 Arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease)
40,480 decisions2,800 granted · 43.2% favorable
DC 7017 Coronary bypass surgery
2,406 decisions246 granted · 54.1% favorable

Evidence Cited in Published Hypertension Decisions

We analyzed 72,000 published Board decisions involving hypertension for condition-specific evidence, counting only case-specific mentions (boilerplate recitations excluded). "Favorable" is the share of decisions citing that evidence where every issue was granted or the outcome was mixed; the baseline across all these decisions is 59%. Evidence appearing in a decision does not mean it decided the case. Descriptive of the published record, not a prediction.

Bar length shows decisions citing the evidence.

Blood pressure readings documented
36,763 decisions59.9% favorable
Antihypertensive medication documented
12,938 decisions65.0% favorable
Diastolic/systolic threshold findings discussed
12,169 decisions65.2% favorable
Elevated readings or hypertension noted in service
10,089 decisions61.6% favorable

Evidence Cited in Published Peripheral vascular disease Decisions

We analyzed 19,044 published Board decisions involving peripheral vascular disease for condition-specific evidence, counting only case-specific mentions (boilerplate recitations excluded). "Favorable" is the share of decisions citing that evidence where every issue was granted or the outcome was mixed; the baseline across all these decisions is 58%, combining every diagnostic code below. Evidence appearing in a decision does not mean it decided the case. Descriptive of the published record, not a prediction.

Bar length shows decisions citing the evidence.

Varicose veins or stasis findings
5,026 decisions55.7% favorable
Claudication documented (walking distance)
2,116 decisions61.3% favorable
Compression stockings documented
1,050 decisions61.0% favorable
Doppler study or ankle-brachial index documented
931 decisions57.9% favorable
Diminished pulses or trophic changes on exam
757 decisions73.6% favorable

By diagnostic code

These codes are grouped together above. They do not perform the same, so find your own code here rather than reading the combined figure. A code retired in the schedule rewrites appears without a link, because its decisions were judged under criteria that no longer apply.

Bar length shows published decisions reviewed.

DC 7114 Peripheral arterial disease
14,450 decisions1,556 granted · 59.7% favorable
DC 7120 Varicose veins
4,705 decisions281 granted · 52.5% favorable

Detected by phrase-reading the decision text with condition-specific vocabularies. Source: Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions, RateMyVSO analysis.

Symptoms Recorded in Granted Coronary artery disease Decisions

We analyzed 3,006 granted Board decisions involving coronary artery disease for symptoms named in sentences about the condition (rating-criteria recitations excluded). Descriptive of the published record, what the Board wrote down, not a checklist of what to report.

Bar length shows decisions. Percentages remain context.

Chest pain (angina)
614 decisions20.4% of granted
Shortness of breath
190 decisions6.3% of granted
Fatigue
127 decisions4.2% of granted
Dizziness or fainting
109 decisions3.6% of granted

Symptoms Recorded in Granted Peripheral vascular disease Decisions

We analyzed 1,834 granted Board decisions involving peripheral vascular disease for symptoms named in sentences about the condition (rating-criteria recitations excluded). Descriptive of the published record, what the Board wrote down, not a checklist of what to report.

Bar length shows decisions. Percentages remain context.

Pain or aching in the legs
169 decisions9.2% of granted
Swelling (edema)
131 decisions7.1% of granted
Leg cramping when walking (claudication)
95 decisions5.2% of granted
Ulceration
74 decisions4.0% of granted
Coldness of the extremity
21 decisions1.1% of granted
Numbness
18 decisions1.0% of granted

Detected by phrase-reading the decision text with condition-specific vocabularies. Source: Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions, RateMyVSO analysis.

Common Mistakes

  • No stress test or METs estimate in the file. When the METs level is missing, the primary metric for the rating is missing. If a stress test could not be done safely, ask for a documented estimate under 38 CFR 4.100.
  • Relying on a single blood-pressure reading. Hypertension needs readings confirmed on multiple days. One measurement is not enough to establish or raise the rating.
  • Missing the Agent Orange presumptive. Ischemic heart disease is presumptively service-connected for veterans with qualifying herbicide exposure. Do not try to prove a link the presumption already provides.
  • Not connecting heart disease to service-connected diabetes. Diabetes damages the heart. Heart disease that follows a service-connected diabetes diagnosis is a common secondary claim that is easy to overlook.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does the VA rate heart conditions?
Most heart conditions are rated under 38 CFR 4.104 on workload, measured in symptom-limited METs, the level of physical exertion at which symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pain, fatigue, or dizziness begin. The lower the METs level at which symptoms start, the higher the rating. Two alternate paths sit at the lower levels: cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation confirmed by imaging supports 30 percent, and continuous medication supports 10 percent.
What are METs?
METs stands for metabolic equivalents, a measure of how much exertion an activity takes. Walking slowly is a low number of METs; climbing stairs quickly or doing heavy work is a higher number. The VA looks at the METs level at which your heart symptoms begin: symptoms at a low METs level mean a more severe, higher-rated condition.
How is high blood pressure rated?
Hypertension (DC 7101) is the exception to the METs framework. It is rated on your diastolic and systolic blood-pressure numbers, and the rating requires readings confirmed on multiple days, not a single measurement. See the hypertension guide for the exact thresholds.
Is every heart condition presumptive after herbicide exposure?
No. The herbicide presumptive lists name specific diseases. Ischemic heart disease, which includes coronary artery disease, is on the list, and hypertension is on it as well, so a veteran with qualifying exposure and service generally does not have to prove the medical link for those diagnoses. Ischemic heart disease does not include peripheral vascular disease, stroke, or every other cardiovascular diagnosis, and a condition that is not listed runs through the ordinary direct, secondary, or aggravation routes. Check the current lists on the PACT Act page against the exact diagnosis and service.
What changes after a pacemaker, bypass, valve procedure, or transplant?
The rating moves through separate states rather than settling once. Several codes assign a total evaluation for a defined period tied to the event, for example during and for three months after a myocardial infarction, for one month after discharge following pacemaker implantation, or for at least one year after a heart transplant, and a defibrillator carries a total evaluation under the ventricular-arrhythmia code while it is in place. Valve replacement and transplant then require a mandatory examination before residuals are evaluated. Because the trigger may be admission, discharge, implantation, or treatment end depending on the code, the operative report and follow-up dates belong in the file.
Does ejection fraction still set the general heart percentage?
No. Ejection fraction is the percentage of blood the left ventricle pumps out with each beat, measured on an echocardiogram. A lower ejection fraction points to a weaker heart, and it is useful clinical evidence of how the condition is progressing. But it is not a percentage level in the current general heart formula; the ejection-fraction thresholds belonged to the schedule in effect before November 14, 2021. The current formula uses symptom-limited METs, with hypertrophy/dilatation and continuous-medication alternate paths.

Related Tools and Guides

Sources: 38 CFR 4.104, cardiovascular ratings. Educational only, not legal advice, and not a prediction of any individual claim. Rating criteria and case law change; confirm current details in 38 CFR Part 4. For help with your claim, find a VA-accredited representative.