The relative benefit of staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus culprit-only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary disease remains disputable. Therefore, we conducted this study to compare the long-term outcomes of staged complete revascularization and culprit-only PCI in this population. A total of 1,205 patients were treated with staged PCI (n = 576) or culprit-only PCI (n = 629) from January 2006 to December 2015 in our center. After propensity-score matching, 415 pairs of patients were identified, and postmatching absolute standardized differences were <10% for all covariates. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or unplanned revascularization. The mean follow-up duration was 5 years. Overall, staged complete revascularization was associated with lower risks of MACCE, MI, unplanned revascularization, and a composite of cardiac death, MI or stroke compared with culprit-only PCI in both overall population and propensity-matched cohorts. In Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, the strategy of staged PCI was consistently a significant predictor of lower incidences of MACCE, MI, unplanned revascularization and a composite of cardiac death, MI, or stroke. However, there was no difference in the risks of MACCE, MI and unplanned revascularization between the 2 approaches for diabetic patients. In conclusion, among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who underwent primary PCI, an approach of staged complete revascularization is superior to culprit-only PCI at 5-year follow-up. Nevertheless, the advantage of staged PCI is attenuated in diabetic patients.