Often yes, though the route depends on severity. Simplified issue is the usual path for a stable, treated file, while accelerated underwriting will typically route a cardiac history into full underwriting instead.
All three no-exam products remain available with a cardiac history, but they behave very differently, and applying to the wrong one costs weeks.
Accelerated underwriting
Generally not the right route for a significant cardiac history. The prescription and medical data will surface the event, the model will decline to decide, and the application gets routed into underwriting">full underwriting anyway — so the speed advantage disappears. That is a delay rather than a decline.
Simplified issue
The more predictable path for a stable, treated file. A short set of health questions, no blood draw, a decision in days. Read the knockout questions carefully: many ask about a cardiac event within a stated number of years, and answering honestly ends that application. See simplified issue.
Guaranteed issue
No health questions at all, small face amounts, and a graded death benefit for the first two or three years. The right answer during a postpone period or where severity has closed the other routes, and a poor answer if something better is available, because the pricing gap is substantial.
How to choose
Roughly: recent event, use guaranteed issue as a bridge. Stable and some years out, try simplified issue. Well controlled with good cardiac function and several clear years, a fully underwritten application may beat any no-exam route on price. Our page on what no-exam actually means sets out the trade-offs.
The full treatment of this topic is on Heart and stroke.