Why hasn't cardiovascular screening kept pace with cancer and diabetes? The marker-gating rule behind the stall, and the coverage gap it has left open.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and by most accounts its prevention framework has barely moved in twenty years. Cancer screening expanded eligibility five times over. Diabetes screening dropped its starting age by five years and built an entire prediabetes-interception model around it. Cardiovascular prevention, by comparison, looks frozen. The core levers, blood pressure screening, statin therapy, and one-time abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound, have barely changed since the early 2000s, and the one major move in the last decade was a contraction, aspirin for primary prevention was pulled back rather than expanded.

That perception is accurate as far as it goes, but it misdiagnoses the mechanism. Cardiovascular prevention is not stagnant by philosophy. It is gated by a single, identifiable condition. It advances wherever a cheap, quantifiable, trial-validated risk marker already exists to define a treatable population, and it stalls wherever that marker is missing. Cancer and diabetes screening look like they evolved because they expanded eligibility on tests that already had outcome trials behind them. Cardiovascular prevention has had far fewer of those markers clear the bar, and the ones that have not cleared it have been sitting in a holding pattern for over a decade, not because nobody is looking, but because the trial evidence that would justify population screening has never been generated.

The interesting story is not that cardiovascular prevention lags behind cancer and diabetes. It is that clinical evidence and coverage policy in cardiology now run on two different clocks, with no gearing between them. This piece traces that mechanism across three domains, general cardiovascular risk screening, heart failure, and the newly formalized cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, and then follows it to where it actually matters for practice and payer policy, the widening distance between what specialty guidelines now support and what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and by extension most coverage policy, has ever addressed.

USPSTF and the illusion of stagnation

Look closely at what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has actually done with cardiovascular screening over the last decade, and the picture is one of narrowing, not neglect. The core recommendations, hypertension screening, risk-based statin therapy, one-time abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound in men who have ever smoked, and behavioral counseling, were reaffirmed largely intact through their most recent reviews.^1-4 The only major change in the last ten years was a contraction. Aspirin for primary prevention was downgraded from a general recommendation to individualized decision-making, Grade C, for adults 40 to 59, and recommended against, Grade D, for adults 60 and older.⁵

Meanwhile, every candidate marker that would have pushed cardiovascular screening upstream toward subclinical disease detection has been evaluated and has landed on an I, insufficient evidence, or a D, recommend against. Coronary artery calcium scoring, resting and exercise electrocardiography, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and ankle-brachial index all received a Grade I in the Task Force's most recent review of nontraditional cardiovascular risk factors.^6,7 Not one of these markers lacks biological plausibility. What they lack is a randomized outcome trial demonstrating that screening for them, and acting on the result, changes mortality or major cardiovascular events at a population level.

Cancer and diabetes screening, by contrast, expanded visibly because they extended eligibility on tests that already had that evidence base. Diabetes screening dropped from age 40 to 35, built around an explicit prediabetes-interception model.^8,9 Colorectal cancer screening dropped from 50 to 45. Breast cancer screening dropped from 50 to 40.^10,11 Cardiovascular disease had no analogous expansion because its underlying risk engine, the Pooled Cohort Equations, and the thresholds built on it were unchanged for most of that period. The two fields were not on different evolutionary tracks. They were both gated by the same rule, and cardiovascular disease simply had fewer markers clear it.

Vascular and stroke prevention, same logic and sharper edges

Extend the same lens to vascular and stroke prevention and the pattern holds, with one important refinement. Screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis carries a Grade D, meaning the Task Force is not simply withholding endorsement, it is actively recommending against the test. The evidence review concluded that the harms of screening, false positives, unnecessary imaging cascades, and unnecessary carotid endarterectomy or stenting in patients who would not have benefited, outweigh the benefit.¹³ That is a materially different posture than insufficient evidence, and it is the reason payers generally will not reimburse carotid duplex ultrasound as a screening service. Under the Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate, only A and B grades carry the no-cost-sharing requirement, and a D grade affirmatively signals net harm rather than an open question.

Atrial fibrillation screening lands in the same bucket as coronary calcium, ankle-brachial index, and resting ECG, a Grade I, insufficient evidence, most recently reaffirmed in 2022.¹⁴ The detection technology here is inexpensive and already widely deployed through consumer wearables, but no trial has yet shown that finding subclinical atrial fibrillation and acting on it with anticoagulation improves stroke or mortality outcomes enough to justify population-level screening. Peripheral artery disease follows the identical pattern through the ankle-brachial index, also Grade I.¹⁵

The distinction worth holding onto is that carotid stenosis and atrial fibrillation are not the same failure mode. Coronary calcium, ABI, and AFib screening are candidates that simply have not cleared the outcomes-trial bar yet. Carotid stenosis screening cleared review and failed it, because the downstream intervention causes more harm than benefit in a population of unselected asymptomatic adults. One is a marker still waiting on trial data. The other is a marker that got its trial data and lost.

Heart failure and the natriuretic peptide arc

Heart failure supplies the clearest proof of the marker-gating principle inside a single guideline body's own history. In 2010, the joint ACCF/AHA Guideline for Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Asymptomatic Adults evaluated natriuretic peptide measurement as a general marker of coronary heart disease risk and rejected it outright. The guideline states plainly that measurement of natriuretic peptides is not recommended for coronary heart disease risk assessment in asymptomatic adults, a Class III, No Benefit, Level of Evidence B.¹⁶ That same biomarker, unchanged in its biology, was reconsidered three years later against a different endpoint. The 2013 ACCF/AHA heart failure guideline gave natriuretic-peptide-based screening a Class IIb recommendation specifically for incident heart failure risk, and the 2017 focused update upgraded it to Class IIa on the strength of the STOP-HF and PONTIAC trials, which showed that BNP-guided screening followed by structured cardiology-supported care reduced progression to left ventricular dysfunction and new-onset heart failure.^17,18 The 2022 heart failure guideline reaffirmed the Class IIa recommendation.¹²

The same principle explains the so-called Stage B paradox. The 2022 heart failure guideline does endorse presymptomatic treatment of structural disease. Stage B with an ejection fraction of 40 percent or below carries a Class 1, Level of Evidence A recommendation for ACE inhibitors, with beta-blockers and ARBs added post-myocardial infarction, conceptually identical to treating asymptomatic hypertension.¹² The struggle is confined to the larger, fuzzier Stage B phenotype, diastolic dysfunction and preserved-ejection-fraction subclinical change, where no trial has proven that early pharmacotherapy alters outcomes, and where the newer transformative agents, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, ARNIs, and SGLT2 inhibitors, are not indicated in the absence of symptoms or a qualifying comorbidity.^12,19 The gap versus hypertension and lipid management is the absence of a cheap universal detection test. Echocardiography or biomarker screening applied to the entire population would overtest and underyield unless the population is first risk-enriched, which is precisely why the current frontier is trying to build that enrichment step.²⁰

It is worth stating plainly what does not exist. There is no USPSTF recommendation statement addressing heart failure screening in asymptomatic at-risk populations at all. Not a Grade I, not a Grade D, no statement. The Task Force has never formally taken up the question, despite the Stage A and B risk framework having existed in ACC/AHA guidelines since 2001 and having been reaffirmed and strengthened across four subsequent updates.

Stage A and Stage B carry more prognostic distinction than assumed

Published community-cohort data indicate there is likely more risk differentiation in early heart failure than is often assumed. The strongest available evidence on this point is Mohebi and colleagues, a pooled analysis of 11,618 participants across MESA, the Cardiovascular Health Study, and the Framingham Heart Study, with fifteen years of follow-up.²¹ Applying the 2022 staging criteria, adjusted all-cause mortality relative to a healthy reference group was not statistically distinguishable from healthy for Stage A, but roughly double for Stage B. Cardiovascular mortality told the same story, and progression to symptomatic disease was the sharpest signal of all. Using Stage A as the reference, Stage B carried a hazard ratio of 10.61 for incident heart failure. That is a large, adjusted, statistically significant difference in prognosis between the two stages, not a marginal one.

One caveat is worth naming. The Mohebi cohorts accrued most of their follow-up before current guideline-directed medical therapy was standard of care. The Framingham offspring exam ran from 1995 to 1998, the Cardiovascular Health Study baseline from 1989 to 1993, and the MESA baseline from 2000 to 2002, so the bulk of this outcomes window predates the SGLT2 inhibitor heart failure indication and predates the 2022 guideline's removal of beta-blockers from the HFpEF treatment pathway. This cohort describes the natural history of untreated or under-treated progression, which if anything argues for more urgency now that disease-modifying therapy exists.

The more fundamental point is that staging as a clinical intervention target has largely never been tested, because Stage A and Stage B cannot be easily identified from administrative data at all. Mohebi's own reclassification finding makes this concrete. Applying only echocardiographic criteria, the 2013 definition, Stage B prevalence was 15.9 percent. Adding biomarker criteria, the 2022 definition, more than doubled it to 43.2 percent, entirely by finding people who were already there and simply invisible to the earlier framework.²¹ No ICD-10 code captures Stage A or B as a distinct entity today either. These patients are coded under hypertension, diabetes, or obesity, and their costs are attributed to those conditions rather than to heart failure. A field cannot run a detect-and-treat outcomes trial, or hold a health system accountable for one, against a population its own data infrastructure cannot see or price. That is a measurement gap, and it is not evidence that staging lacks clinical significance.

CDC surveillance illustrates the scale of the uncaptured, undermanaged population feeding this pipeline. Among U.S. adults, 47.7 percent have hypertension, and of those, only 20.7 percent have their blood pressure controlled below 130/80 mmHg, despite 51.2 percent being on medication.²³ That is roughly four in five hypertensive adults with a known, modifiable risk factor that is not at goal. Prolonged, undermanaged hypertension is a well-established driver of hemodynamic load progressing to structural change, left atrial enlargement and left ventricular hypertrophy among them, which is exactly the pathway into Stage B. The uncaptured population Mohebi's reclassification exposes and the under-controlled population CDC documents are very likely the same population, viewed through two different lenses.

The biomarker blind spot in natriuretic-peptide-first screening

A 2026 analysis from the ARIC study supplies direct evidence that symptom burden carries prognostic weight independent of, and specifically amplified in, the population that natriuretic peptide screening misses. Pavlovic and colleagues followed 2,972 ARIC participants with Stage B heart failure, defined by echocardiographic or biomarker criteria, for a median of 8.4 years.²⁴ Symptom burden alone, measured through general and exertional fatigue, independently predicted incident heart failure. The risk was also phenotype-specific, all three fatigue categories independently predicted incident HFpEF, but none predicted incident HFrEF.

A supplementary analysis in the same study is where this sharpens into a direct, quantified blind-spot finding. The authors re-ran the analysis after excluding anyone already flagged by NT-proBNP, isolating the symptomatic patients a biomarker-first pathway would have called low risk. In that biomarker-negative subgroup, the fatigue hazard ratios did not shrink, they roughly doubled.

This is direct, quantified evidence that a natriuretic-peptide-gated pathway systematically misses a subset of patients carrying real, elevated risk, and that the symptom signal in that missed subset is stronger, not weaker. A pathway that does not gate on NT-proBNP before assessing symptom burden and filling pressure has no structural blind spot at the threshold where ARIC shows real risk concentrates. The 2026 ESC heart failure guideline's HFpEF diagnostic framework moved in the same direction independently, running diagnosis through a composite of echocardiographic parameters rather than anchoring on a single natriuretic peptide threshold, and cautioning that those thresholds need reevaluation in obesity.²⁵

SGLT2 inhibitors and the model working as designed

SGLT2 inhibitors are the cleanest example of the marker-gating model succeeding, precisely because diabetes and chronic kidney disease supply the missing marker that heart failure itself cannot. The 2022 heart failure guideline gives SGLT2 inhibitors a Class 1 recommendation to prevent heart failure hospitalization in asymptomatic patients, but the trigger is a comorbidity-defined Stage A substrate, type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease or elevated cardiovascular risk, or chronic kidney disease, not asymptomatic structural heart disease itself.^12,26 The direct heart failure treatment trials, DAPA-HF, DELIVER, and the EMPEROR program, all enrolled symptomatic Stage C patients, so the Stage A and B benefit is inferred from the diabetes and CKD trial populations rather than demonstrated directly.²⁷ That is exactly why the indication is written around HbA1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and albuminuria rather than around any subclinical cardiac phenotype. The marker that gated this success was never a heart marker. It was a metabolic and renal one, already validated, already threshold-defined, already reimbursed.

The ACC/AHA and USPSTF asymmetry, precisely stated

The 2010 ACCF/AHA risk-assessment guideline is a useful control document, because it shows that ACC/AHA itself rejects most proposed risk markers using its own, looser evidentiary bar.²⁸ Genomic testing, lipoprotein and apolipoprotein panels beyond a standard lipid profile, general echocardiography, stress echocardiography, stress myocardial perfusion imaging in low or intermediate risk, coronary CT angiography, cardiac MRI for plaque, and natriuretic peptides for CHD risk all received a Class III, No Benefit designation. On that long list, ACC/AHA and USPSTF agree.

As best as the public guideline record shows, this document has never been formally revisited. Its territory was absorbed piecemeal into later, disease-specific guidelines, the 2013 cholesterol guideline, the 2019 primary prevention guideline, and now the 2026 CKM guideline, rather than being maintained as a freestanding framework for the question it was written to answer, how to assess risk in the asymptomatic adult. That fragmentation is part of why a newer marker, coronary CT-derived plaque burden among them, has no obvious home to be formally reconsidered in.

The mechanism behind that narrow zone of disagreement is architectural, not just evidentiary. The two bodies are not disagreeing about the underlying biology. They are answering two different questions, whether a test can reasonably help an individual patient versus whether it should be mandated and reimbursed for an entire population, using two different evidentiary architectures built for those separate purposes. This is a recognized structural phenomenon, not one specific to cardiology. A National Academies consensus report examined it directly, and a JAMA Cardiology commentary made the identical comparison for statin therapy.^29,30

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, the live version of the gap

This is not a historical curiosity. It is happening again, right now, with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. The 2023 AHA presidential advisory established the CKM staging framework, stages 0 through 4, built around the interconnection between metabolic risk factors, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. This year that became a full joint practice guideline, the 2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of CKM Syndrome, the first comprehensive guideline of its kind, explicitly calling for earlier screening and staging in primary care.³¹ Alongside it, AHA and ACC published a 2026 scientific statement on using the PREVENT equations, which now replace the Pooled Cohort Equations in the 2025 hypertension guideline and the 2026 dyslipidemia guideline, to estimate outcome-specific predicted risk and expected treatment benefit across cardiovascular, atherosclerotic, and heart failure endpoints.³² That is a materially stronger, more actionable framework than existed even three years ago, built on newer trial evidence for SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists across the CKM spectrum.

The convergence is closer than a side-by-side reading of three guidelines suggests. CKD status and heart failure stage are not adjacent to CKM staging, they are criteria written directly into it. Moderate-to-high-risk chronic kidney disease is one of the conditions that defines CKM Stage 2. An asymptomatic structural or biomarker abnormality, the same definition the 2022 heart failure guideline and the 2026 Universal Definition use for Stage B, is named explicitly as a CKM Stage 3 criterion. Symptomatic heart failure, Stage C or D, is what defines CKM Stage 4, split into 4a and 4b by the presence of kidney failure. Three specialty societies did not build three parallel staging systems that happen to overlap. They built one staged disease model and gave it three names depending on which risk factor a clinician is looking at first.^12,31,33

USPSTF has not engaged with any of it. There is no recommendation statement addressing PREVENT-based risk stratification, CKM staging, or CKM syndrome as a screening construct. The Task Force's most recent relevant statements, diabetes, statins, and hypertension, still sit on the older risk framework and the older population thresholds. The specialty side rebuilt the risk model and matched it to a coordinated, stage-based treatment pathway. The screening-policy side has not caught up, and there is no indication yet that it is scheduled to.

This is where the mechanism stops being an academic observation and becomes a market access problem. A USPSTF A or B grade is what triggers the ACA's no-cost-sharing mandate, and it is what most payer medical policy and utilization management criteria anchor to when deciding what counts as medically necessary versus discretionary in primary care. AHA/ACC guideline strength, even at Class 1, carries clinical authority but no coverage mechanism of its own. A primary care clinician today can stage a patient using CKM criteria and calculate PREVENT-based risk, but there is no USPSTF-linked billing or coverage infrastructure built around doing so. No mandated no-cost risk assessment visit exists, and no payer requirement to reimburse CKM staging as a preventive service exists the way one does for a lipid panel or an HbA1c under existing USPSTF-anchored screening.

What this means in practice

Cardiovascular medicine is not more reactive than cancer or diabetes care by philosophy. It is gated by evidence, and it treats asymptomatic disease as aggressively as any field wherever a validated marker and threshold-outcome trials exist. Hypertension and lipid management prove that. SGLT2 inhibitors in Stage A heart failure prove it again, borrowing a marker from an adjacent disease when heart failure could not supply its own. The frontier now, heart failure risk scores built on PREVENT-HF, natriuretic peptide screening extended beyond diabetes and CKD populations, AI-ECG for subclinical left ventricular dysfunction, and the 2026 Second Universal Definition of Heart Failure, is an explicit attempt to manufacture for heart failure the detection-plus-threshold apparatus that hypertension and lipids have had for decades.^20,33,34

Frequently asked questions

This piece is analysis and commentary based on public guideline documents, peer-reviewed literature, and professional experience as of the date noted, and nothing in it constitutes clinical, legal, or financial advice. Grades, classes, and statistics reflect the cited source documents. Interpretive conclusions, including the marker-gating framing and the CKM staging correspondence, are the author's synthesis, offered for analytical discussion. All views reflect independent professional judgment and do not represent the positions of any current or former employer or affiliated organization.

References

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Hypertension in Adults: Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021.
2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Statin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults. JAMA. 2022.
3. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. JAMA. 2019.
4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral Counseling Interventions to Promote a Healthy Diet and Physical Activity for CVD Prevention in Adults Without Risk Factors. JAMA. 2022.
5. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease. JAMA. 2022.
6. US Preventive Services Task Force. Risk Assessment for Cardiovascular Disease With Nontraditional Risk Factors. JAMA. 2018.
7. Jonas DE, Reddy S, Middleton JC, et al. Screening for CVD Risk With Resting or Exercise Electrocardiography: Systematic Review for the USPSTF. JAMA. 2018.
8. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes. JAMA. 2021.
9. Jonas DE, Crotty K, Yun JDY, et al. Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review for the USPSTF. JAMA. 2021.
10. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Colorectal Cancer. JAMA. 2021.
11. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer. JAMA. 2024.
12. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022.
13. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis. JAMA. 2021.
14. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA. 2022.
15. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Peripheral Artery Disease and CVD Risk Assessment With the Ankle-Brachial Index. JAMA. 2018.
16. Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Asymptomatic Adults: Executive Summary. Circulation. 2010;122:2748-2764.
17. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. Circulation. 2013.
18. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 Heart Failure Guideline. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017.
19. Bozkurt B. Contemporary Pharmacological Treatment and Management of Heart Failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2024.
20. Khan SS, Breathett K, Braun LT, et al. Risk-Based Primary Prevention of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the AHA. Circulation. 2025.
21. Mohebi R, Wang D, Lau ES, et al. Effect of 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA Criteria on Stages of Heart Failure in a Pooled Community Cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81(23):2231-2242.
22. Jia X, Al Rifai M, Ndumele CE, et al. Reclassification of Pre-Heart Failure Stages Using Cardiac Biomarkers: The ARIC Study. JACC Heart Fail. 2023;11(4):440-450.
23. National Center for Health Statistics. Hypertension Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control Among Adults Age 18 and Older, United States, August 2021 to August 2023. NCHS Data Brief No. 511. October 2024.
24. Pavlovic NV, Saylor MA, Himmelfarb CR, et al. General and Exertional Fatigue, Quality of Life, and Risk of Incident Clinical Heart Failure in Those With Pre-heart Failure in the ARIC Study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2026;15(16):e046789.
25. Kober L, Adamo M, Ruwald AC, et al. 2026 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure. Eur Heart J. 2026.
26. Marx N, Federici M, Schutt K, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Diabetes. Eur Heart J. 2023.
27. Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Claggett B, et al. Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction. N Engl J Med. 2022.
28. Berger JS, Jordan CO, Lloyd-Jones D, Blumenthal RS. Screening for Cardiovascular Risk in Asymptomatic Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1169-1177.
29. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Closing Evidence Gaps in Clinical Prevention. National Academies Press.
30. Stone NJ, Greenland P, Grundy SM. Statin Usage in Primary Prevention, Comparing the USPSTF Recommendations With the AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(10):997-999.
31. Ndumele CE, Rodriguez F, Dixon DL, et al. 2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome. Circulation. 2026;154(4):e50-e158.
32. Khan SS, Bhave N, Blumenthal RS, et al. Use of Predicted Risk and Expected Benefit to Guide Decision-Making in CKM Syndrome for the Primary Prevention of CVD: A Scientific Statement From the AHA and ACC. Circulation. 2026;154(4):e159-e180.
33. Walsh MN, Kober L, Sliwa K, et al. AHA/ACC/ESC/WHF Expert Consensus Document: Second Universal Definition of Heart Failure (2026). Eur Heart J. 2026;47(32):4357-4374.
34. Butler J, Khan MS, Ferreira JP, et al. Heart Failure Prevention: Evidence Generation, Trial Design, and Regulatory Pathways. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87(15):1907-1935.