Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown fractional flow reserve-guided (FFR) multivessel stenting to be superior to infarct-related artery (IRA) only stenting in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. This effect was mainly driven by a reduction in overall repeat revascularization. However, the ability to assess the effect of this strategy on urgent revascularization or reinfarction was underpowered in individual trials. Methods We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science for RCTs of FFR-guided multivessel stenting versus IRA-only stenting in STEMI with multivessel disease. The outcomes of interest were death, reinfarction, urgent, and non-urgent repeat revascularization. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Results After review of 786 citations, 2 RCTs were included. The pooled results demonstrated a significant reduction in the composite of death, reinfarction, or revascularization in the FFR-guided multivessel stenting group versus IRA-only stenting group (RR [95%, Confidence Interval]: 0.49 [0.33–0.72], p < 0.001). This risk reduction was driven mainly by a reduction in repeat revascularization, both urgent (0.41 [0.24–0.71], p = 0.002) and non-urgent revascularization (0.31 [0.19–0.50], p < 0.001). Pooled RR for reinfarction was lower in the FFR-guided strategy, but was not statistically significant (0.71[0.39–1.31], p = 0.28). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a strategy of FFR-guided multivessel stenting in STEMI patients reduces not only overall repeat revascularization but also urgent revascularization. The effect on reinfarction needs to be evaluated in larger trials.