Aim: The use of vena caval filters has increased significantly since the introduction of percutaneous placement techniques and the development of reduced-profile devices. This study was conducted to evaluate our current use of vena caval filters. 
Patients and methods: Between January 2000 and May 2004, fifty- five patients (26 males) underwent vena cava filter 
placement. The indications for filter placement were contraindication or failure of anticoagulation in 51 patients and 
prophylaxis in 4 (7.2%) patients. Titanium Greenfield filters were inserted in 33 patients (60%), VenaTech filters in 15 patients (27.2%), Simon Nitinol filter in one patient (1.8%), Bird's Nest filters in three patients (5.4%), and TrapEase filters in three patients (5.4%). 
Results: All attempts at filter placement were successful. The deployment sites were the infra-renal inferior vena cava (IVC) in 52 patients, the supra-renal IVC in two patients, and the superior vena cava (SVC) in one patient. No procedure-related mortality occurred in this study population. Three patients developed caval thrombosis (5.4%). Three more patients (5.4%) had recurrent deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and another patient had recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE). Comparison with studies published showed that our current indications and results are in agreement with others. 
Conclusion: This study demonstrated that caval filter placement continues to be an effective and safe adjunct in the 
treatment of venous thromboembolic disease and a satisfactory prophylactic measure in specific high-risk patients.